This story pops up every now and again. It is in vain that we try to explain that there is no point to lifting an excommunication from a dead man, when excommunication ends at the moment of death anyway.
But that misses the point. If we were honest, we would acknowledge that what Dr Gassmann is asking for in his call to “declare officially that its [the Catholic Church’s] excommunication of Martin Luther no longer applies” is a re-evaluation by the Church of the founding father of the school of theology to which Dr Gassmann belongs.
The fact is that that is a complicated business. We have seen that even with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, there is some question as to the exact degree of agreement that has been reached. (Chris Burgwald’s dissertation “The Sinfulness of the Justified” seems to offer enough evidence that, while the JDDJ does not actually succeed in doing what it claims to have done – ie. overcoming a “church-dividing” issue (if it had done so, why are we still divided?) – it does go some way to uncovering possible future directions along this line.)
On Saturday I am giving a lecture to our “School of Prayer” on Lutheran Spirituality. It may surprise some readers of this blog that in fact I often come across features in Catholic spirituality that are very close (if not identical) to Lutheran doctrine. Chris Burgwald cites one of them in his dissertation: St Therese of Lisieux’s statement
“In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in our eyes. I with, tehn, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.”
The simple fact is that such ideas are more often to be found in writings on spiritual theology rather than dogmatic theology, which points to the fact that the greater part of Lutheran doctrine was concerned with pastoral and experiental theology rather than objective and metaphysical theology.
My point is that there are certainly aspects of Luther’s theology which can and ought to be re-evaluated. Not only is there much in his theology which agrees with Catholic theology, but there is much that could bring greater insight into the Gospel and a more lively application of the doctrines of the faith in the lives of Catholic believers.
At the same time there are real errors in his theology which the Church will never be able to grant or re-evaluate positively. Luther is a tree on which there is rich and healthy fruit, but also some fruit that is infected and unhealthy.
Perhaps then, the first step towards “rehabilitating” Luther would be to adopt a somewhat more nuanced judgement, one which neither attempted to declare everything he taught to be heresy, nor attempted to raise him to the level of a doctor of the Church. We need to learn to make distinctions – something which I believe Dr Martin himself once declared was the core of the theological endeavour.
My personal judgement is that we should make a distinction between Luther’s spirituality and the specifically Lutheran doctrines that arose out of an application of that spirituality in a polemical attitude towards the Catholic Church. When I describe myself as “a Lutheran in communion with the bishop of Rome”, it is Lutheran spirituality, not Lutheran doctrine which characterises my Lutheran-ness. In every case of dogmatic theology, I submit to the teachings of the Catholic Church. But, when divorced from the polemics which surrounded them in the 16th Century, Luther’s spiritual insights are truly valuable. Luther’s theology of the Cross, his Christocentrism, his understanding of the Deus revelatus and Deus absconditus, even the famous “simul” (when understood as simul justus et concupiscentius – David Yeago is surely right when he points out that Catholics and Lutherans do not differ in their doctrine of concupiscence, only in their moral evaluation of it as sin “in the strict sense”) all give life and depth to the true faith of the Catholic Church.
I believe that the ultimate error of the Lutheran Church (and perhaps even Luther himself?) was to raise the deeply mystical insights of Luther’s spirituality to the level of public dogma – and then to rob it of all vitality by developing it into a scholastic system. How else was it possible for them to make the claim that “justification by faith alone” (which is ultimately a spiritual and mystical insight) was “the article” (ie. a dogmatic proposition) “on which the Church stands or falls”? It may very well be an insight upon which the individual believer’s relationship with God stands or falls (this is spiritual and pastoral theology) but can it be said to be the doctrine by which all other dogma is to be judged (this is dogmatic theology)?
It is ironic that the Lutherans allowed a mystical insight to trump the actual dogma of the Church, because Luther himself was a critic of mystics and enthusiasts who did not submit their ideas to the “external Word”. For Catholic spiritual theologians, the “external Word” is always that which the Church teaches. Personal mysticism submits to public magisterium.
All this being said, when Luther’s spiritual insights ARE submissive to the dogma of the Church, they have great benefit and great power. I for one would happily see a refreshed evaluation of these aspects of Luther’s teaching in the Church today.
I’ve never heard of Luther giving life to the catholic Church! This is too much Mr Schutz. Wasn’t it the heretic Luther who said that if the Pope had power of loosing the Holy Souls from Purgatory he should let them all out? Really your idea of being a Lutheran Catholic is nonsensical, and if as you say it’s Luther’s spirituality you adhere to then if that spirituality is genuine then he got it from Catholicism. Read these words of Pope Leo X from his Bull Exsurge Domine
“Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. Give heed to the cause of the holy Roman Church, mother of all churches and teacher of the faith, whom you by the order of God, have consecrated by your blood. Against the Roman Church, you warned, lying teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and drawing upon themselves speedy doom. Their tongues are fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison. They have bitter zeal, contention in their hearts, and boast and lie against the truth.” Not much here about the spirituality of the heretic is there? And again”
Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them.” Seems to me that you exactly fall under Pope Leo’s condemnation and you are an official of the Church…..this is really too much and if by chance some think the Pope went too far read on
“Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church. ” Now tht’s true charity..I say along with Pope Leo cast out the Lutheran heresy.
Cranky franky
what is your stance on Scripture? for you my friend from port melbourne- my football team- seem to be grossly ignorant of what the Bible counts as heresy.In fact not once do you ever quote scripture,so you must be ignorant per se, and i am sick and tired of your SSPX based tirades against SchutZ. t\The Lord rebuke you!! and were it not that Schutz is also a gentleman ,i wonder that he has not stopped you from commenting
On the basis of your comments matthias you are very discourteous and do not seem to understand the dogma of the Church which is based on Scripture and Tradition. I do not have to quote Scripture, I leave that to the heretics and their myriad denominations to squabble over. Catholics have the Truth and that is our Faith. My stance on Scripture is that of the Church. I do not need like some Jehovahs Witness to mouth off pieces from the bible to bolster my arguments. Like so many matthias you are simply unwilling to look at Catholicism pure and simple. It’s essence is Truth. And you are way off the track re what you so delicatley call my “SSPX tirades against Schutz”…..For the record I have NEVER supported their disobedience and I am quietly rejoivcing that the Pope is bringing them back to the Church. They will serve the cause of Catholicism well. As far as your desire for the Lord to rebuke me, I assure you He does so everyday and thats why I hear Holy Mass and go to Confession. It is such a pity that many folk these days can’t stand vigorous debate and dialogue without descending into the pit of personal insults. Really matthias you should know better. I am confident that mr Schutz will join the fray here and argue his position in a civil manner.
If I have offended you Franky then i apologise,but it is you who is being discourteous to our host,as for personal insults,if you think my questioning of your knowledge of Scripture is an insult,then you are wrong.
Perhaps I should put you in touch with a Reformed Baptist minister i know,who could match you word for word in his Anticatholicism-he is an Ulsterman-and i have never met a more bigotted protestant.I grew up in an environment that was the Protestant version of what your comments are about. I disavowed it when i met a nun who was involved with CCR-no clown masses then- and i then worked at the Mercy maternity hospital as a nurse. Why the mercy and not the RWH-i do not like charnel houses!!!Perhaps i am heading towards Rome,which is far better than heading to Mecca,apologies to your fellow travellers Schutz.
Dear David,
I would think a more positive evaluation is to recognize that he was indeed a doctor of the Church – and that being such by no means indicates that the Church accepts all his opinions. I think of Gregory of Nyssa who could at times skate uncomfortably close to Origen’s heresy. Though, in your thinking, perhaps Origen provides a nearer analogy. In any case, I affirm exactly highlighting the pastoral concern that guided so much of the Lutheran Reformation. How do you comfort a conscience who is terror stricken by the demands of the Law that they have not met and know that they cannot meet? St. Theresa puts it exactly right. When Lutherans speak of the chief article, I think that particular needs to be borne in mind: to such troubled consciences this article is the chief means of granting comfort: Christ rewards us according to HIS justice/righteousness and not our own.
Matthias, what is CCR? And by the way please have the courtesy to call me Frank and not ny that franky word.
I think this DE Fide statement sums up the Catholic dogma re Justification ” The sinner can and must prepare himself by the help of actual grace for the reception of grace by which he is justified” That is the Catholic dogma and if you take the Little Flower’s example she prepared herself by her life of penance in the convent and was thereby made ready to receive God’s blessings. Also another De Fide statement which helps here “Besdies faith, furhter acts of disposition must be present”. (And this is avaialable in Fr Otts excellent compendium of dogma.
Frank it is Catholic Charismatic Renewal. Bishop Prowse has been associated with it ,as has Father Wahid Rias at St Augustines Church in Burke Street,near Spencer sorry Southern Cross station.In fact the latter church is where the HQ-for want of a better word- is based.
Frank here is the link
http://www.ccr.org.au ,and it’s centre is now in North Fitzroy
@David
It might be a profitable exercise to scrutinise material which is in accordance with Church teaching but surely you would recognise the potential dangers that such indulgence would have to the reader?
And further, would not stringent conditions need to be applied to the reader to ensure that they don’t misunderstand the material itself?
Based on the general level of catechetical instruction nowadays such a thing would be, IMHO, a mine-field for the average Catholic unless they were properly guided in their reading/intepretations. And besides, how many people would be available to do this sort of thing?
I applaud you, David, for a more reflective and positive approach than my own response to the same story :)
It is worth having a look at both the Catholic and the Lutheran ‘explanations’ of the JDDJ as they took the document back to their respective groups. I have linked the Catholic clarifications on my blog.
SoT posted:
It might be a profitable exercise to scrutinise material which is in accordance with Church teaching but surely you would recognise the potential dangers that such indulgence would have to the reader?
It’s ‘in accordance’ with ‘The Truth’, but it’s (potentially) dangerous???
And further, would not stringent conditions need to be applied to the reader to ensure that they don’t misunderstand the material itself?
Good point. Tradition MUST rule over scripture. (as David has posted with some enthusiasm in several places)
Based on the general level of catechetical instruction nowadays such a thing would be, IMHO, a mine-field for the average Catholic unless they were properly guided in their reading/intepretations. And besides, how many people would be available to do this sort of thing?
How many? well, certainly less than 15%
Vicci
I did not make my first point clear enough – I meant in terms of the whole text. If you went to the source texts, rather than merely extracts of them in accordance with Church teaching, then it could be very dangerous if the reader was not clearly instructed. My apologies for the confusion.
I confess, I am not particularly interested in Luther’s opinions on anything.
It’s hard to say that, though, without sounding as though I have no time for Lutherans, or for you, David, which I hope you know isn’t the case.
And OT, but related to people whose opinions I care little about (I refer to Nietzsche, of the difficult to spell name), it turns out that Nietzsche is not only not the only philosopher worth reading, but indeed, isn’t worth reading at all.
Hearken to my darling Chesterton:
http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/orthodoxy/ch7.html
This, incidentally, is almost the whole weakness of Nietzsche, whom some are representing as a bold and strong thinker. No one will deny that he was a poetical and suggestive thinker; but he was quite the reverse of strong. He was not at all bold. He never put his own meaning before himself in bald abstract words: as did Aristotle and Calvin, and even Karl Marx, the hard, fearless men of thought.
Nietzsche always escaped a question by a physical metaphor, like a cheery minor poet. He said, “beyond good and evil,” because he had not the courage to say, “more good than good and evil,” or, “more evil than good and evil.” Had he faced his thought without metaphors, he would have seen that it was nonsense. So, when he describes his hero, he does not dare to say, “the purer man,” or “the happier man,” or “the sadder man,” for all these are ideas; and ideas are alarming. He says “the upper man,” or “over man,” a physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers. Nietzsche is truly a very timid thinker. He does not really know in the least what sort of man he wants evolution to produce. And if he does not know, certainly the ordinary evolutionists, who talk about things being “higher,” do not know either.
So, while he may have been right for the wrong reasons, or wrong for the right reasons, (or whatever it is) it would seem that perhaps he had no idea what he actually thought at all.
Do we understand each other? ;)
Louise,
It appears as though the current Pontiff disagrees with your assessment of the worth of reading Luther – at least going by how often he references him in his writings (and his apparent familiarity with the contours of his thought). As a Lutheran, let me say that I personally find reading Luther is a mixture of frustration, delight, and astonishment. He’s just that sort. He drops the most astonishing gems along the way and he doesn’t seem to realize he said them, and off he goes belaboring an obvious point. Classic instance is in *Babylonian Captivity* in which he observes that there is really only one Sacrament – our Lord Jesus – and that He offers Himself to us under so many different sacramental signs. And then he ploughs right ahead and doesn’t develop it at all. Typical Luther.
Luther’s best works?
1. German translation of Bible
2. Tabletalk !
Sorry Vicci but if tradition overules Scripture then we have humanism
Louise I am with you re Nietzsche.What was the end of his God denying philosophy-dying with tertiary syphilis (General paralyis of the Insane) in an asylum.For as he reasoned if there is no God there are no God given morals.Good old GK for hitting the nail on the head. Pity he is not around to deal with Singers ideals(!?)
William
But Louise makes the point I was trying to – its an elitist pursuit.
Those who are interested in that level of detail, and that is not everyone, and each person values different things in their reading and learning, will pursue those studies and investigation.
The Pope has his own personal interests and I don’t think they are more authoritative for someone like Louise than for instance yourself or myself. I certainly don’t think he would suggest that reading Luther would be of benefit to everyone. True?
David,
pondering… pondering…
I do wonder about the challenge to Luther’s spirituality posed by the so-called “New Perpective on Paul,” especially the challenge of Krister Stendahl’s “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West.” Not sure here I’m going with this thought…
Much more importantly: should both justified and concupiscent be rendered “simul justus et concupitor”?
I’m not sure, Son of Trypho, what he’d say about that. He’s YOUR pope. Yet Luther does hold good reading (depending on what you’re reading from him) for just about any Christian at all. I’ve been told by a man who swears it is true that in the Philippines a Roman Priest first read the Small Catechism of Luther and decided that he needed copies to share with his parishioners. There indeed one finds “mere Christianity” and expressed with both simplicity and force. Can a Roman Catholic disagree with Luther that the 8th commandment enjoins upon us “to explain our neighbor’s actions in the kindest way”? Or that “we should fear, love, and trust in God above all things” as the explanation of the first commandment?
Fr. Damian,
The “new perspective” on Paul, it seems to me, comes to shipwreck in Paul citing in Romans 7 from the decalogue and not from ceremonial law: “You shall not covet.” Clearly the “law” as Paul understands it cannot then be limited to ceremonial law, no?
I am not in the least bit surprised that the beloved Papa B16 reads Luther, since he even reads Nietzshe! The Holy Father, bless him, has greater intestinal fortitude than Yours Truly and I know my limits.
I think SoT is onto something. Until Catholics get better catechesis, then in general, we had better find out more from our own teachers.
It’s different for someone like David, because of his ministry passion (ecumenism) and experience etc. I would not for the world belittle any of this.
Sorry, Matt.
The comment was naughty. A gentle poke at David, to interrupt his packing. (btw: do men pack?).
As for Luther:
the little I know about him suggests to me that if he were offered ‘de-excommunication’ by the CC, he’d politely decline.
(but I’m not so sure about the ‘politely’ )
On a different tack: if Pope Leo
dropped in, I wonder what Bxvi would make of him…
Pastor WW ,did Luther call the Epistle of St James the epistle of straw? And I think he did not hold the Book of Revelation in high esteem. But i could be wrong-my wife says i only have two faults-everything i say and everything that i do!!
I certainly don’t think he would suggest that reading Luther would be of benefit to everyone. True?
I agree. Papa B16 will happily read anything of interest because he has a strong faith and a brain the size of a planet, but I doubt he’d recommend Luther to those of weaker understanding or faith.
Having said that, I have no doubt that Luther has said many things I would agree with. It’s just the other bits that are of concern.
He’d have his chaplain preach to him about repentance, Vicci!
Pastor Wheedon,
I’m not especially advocating the New Perspective and I was wrong to tie the so-called New Perspective so clearly to Stendahl’s article (given that he precedes significantly the work of Saunders and Dunn and focuses on different issues). It is his question that interests me which concerns Luther reading Paul from a perspective foreign to Paul as an introspective individual weighed down by a fraught conscience.
As to the “law” in Paul, it is a many splendored thing… Definitely not always a referent to circumcision and dietary laws. Dunn says this quite clearly and gets frustrated with those who misread him (personally, I think he leaves himself easily open to such a reading).
I ponder what exactly Paul meant when he said he was “blameless as to righteousness under the law” (Phil 3:5). Does this mean he found the keeping of the law non-problematic?
Pastor WW ,did Luther call the Epistle of St James the epistle of straw?
AFAIK that’s the case, but it may be a malicious slander. If not, I’d have grave concerns about his teachings.
my wife says i only have two faults-everything i say and everything that i do
LOL!
I ponder what exactly Paul meant when he said he was “blameless as to righteousness under the law” (Phil 3:5). Does this mean he found the keeping of the law non-problematic?
I’m inclined to think he observed the law faithfully. But perhaps he still felt something deficient.
But I’m just a housewife, so… you know, all the usual caveats and takings with grains of salt etc.
Luther did indeed so term James, but he was speaking of it relative to other epistles such as Romans or Galatians, which tend to be meatier. Luther (and the Lutherans) maintained the ancient distinction between the books that were “spoken against” in the Early Church and those that were unanimously accepted as apostolic. The practical result of that was that Lutherans insisted that the Church’s dogma is always to be founded in those books that were unanimously accepted – the so called homolegomena. Of course, not one doctrine of the Church is in any way compromised by keeping the distinction. If I may put it so, following Chemnitz, in the Lutheran Church James has as much an no more authority than the Wisdom of Solomon; he terms one the OT Apocrypha and the other part of the NT Apocrypha (James, Hebrews, 2, 3, John, 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation). In German Bibles, these books come at the end of the NT just as the deutero-canonicals come at the end of the OT. Still, historically, Lutherans read all of them in the Divine Service.
As a Lutheran, let me say that I personally find reading Luther is a mixture of frustration, delight, and astonishment. He’s just that sort.
He sounds human!
Mega-human, Louise. It’s one of the things that endears him to us. His foibles are so obvious that none can be deceived into thinking they are virtues; his virtues he seems completely unaware of himself. His zeal is to talk about the Passion and Resurrection, and he does at every opportunity.
Thanks for the information Pastor WW you have corrected what some of the non Lutheran preachers I was a parishioner of ie Baptist/Church of Christ, use to call Luther’s theological faults.
Louise “just a housewife”? An eclectic one then with a ?science degree.
Well, friends, it seems as if I have to make myself a little clearer – although I am not surprised that I would be misunderstood. I expect that really only Peter is capable of making a real judgement on this issue – he, like me, has lived under both “regimes”! I will try to do what Frank suggests and “join the fray here and argue [my] position in a civil manner.”
Frank said: if that spirituality is genuine then he got it from Catholicism..
Yep, that’s right. But post-Luther both Catholic spirituality and Lutheran spirituality developed in different directions. My contention is that there is much in Luther’s own spirituality which is genuinely Catholic. Pastor Weedon is correct when he points out that Pope Benedict appreciates this, which is why he so often refers to Luther in his writings and teaching (even in his second Encyclical SS §7 in which he offers a corrective to Luther’s interpretation of Hebrews 11:1). Pope Benedict has certainly read a lot of Luther’s writings – so I guess in your judgement he comes under Pope Leo X’s condemnation?
Exsurge Domine is an interesting read, which I have promised to post on one day in detail. Suffice it to say many of the doctrines that are spelled out there and condemned are not familiar to me from my own reading of Luther. There is the possibility that Leo and his advisers were not well informed about what Luther actually taught, or (perhaps more likely) were familiar with only a very few of his writings.
Exsurge Domine was published in 1520 – three years into Luther’s reformation career. Luther lived until 1546 – and kept writing all that time. Leo’s condemnation could not possibly apply to all that Luther said and taught. For instance, was he condemning Luther’s stand on the Real Presence against the Zwinglians (which took place in the following decade)? Hardly.
It is true that there is not much about Luther’s spirituality in the condemnations of Exsurge Domine. That too argues in favour of the position I am putting forward – that while specific doctrines that Luther (may have) taught were condemned, not all aspects of his spirituality were specifically condemned.
I am arguing that that leaves open the possibility for a re-evaluation of Luther’s spirituality in our own time in a way which does not contradict Exsurge Domine.
Pastor Weedon said: I would think a more positive evaluation is to recognize that he was indeed a doctor of the Church – and that being such by no means indicates that the Church accepts all his opinions. I think of Gregory of Nyssa who could at times skate uncomfortably close to Origen’s heresy. Though, in your thinking, perhaps Origen provides a nearer analogy.
Actually, I think it will be impossible to ever call Luther a “doctor of the Church” no matter how good, beneficial and truly Catholic some aspects of his spirituality may be. I think the comparison to Origin is absolutely spot on. Origin will never be declared a saint, let alone a doctor of the Church, for precisely the same reasons that Luther never will be. His theology is simply dangerous to the uninitiated. That certainly does not stop us, however, from reading Origin profitably – in fact he is an acknowledged forerunner of many genuinely Catholic doctrines, including that of the Trinity. Without his theological speculations, the Catholic Church would be much the poorer. We just can’t give a rubber stamp to his theology as a whole. I think the same goes for Luther. We could treat him a little more charitably just as we do with Origin.
Pastor Weedon went on to say: “In any case, I affirm exactly highlighting the pastoral concern that guided so much of the Lutheran Reformation.” This is now recognised by theologians on both sides of the fence. Cf. Chris Burgwaldt’s dissertation.
Pastor also said: How do you comfort a conscience who is terror stricken by the demands of the Law that they have not met and know that they cannot meet? St. Theresa puts it exactly right. When Lutherans speak of the chief article, I think that particular needs to be borne in mind: to such troubled consciences this article is the chief means of granting comfort: Christ rewards us according to HIS justice/righteousness and not our own.
And that is exactly as I said it: Coram Deo, even someone like Therese whom the Church objectively declares to have been a saint could only confess her sinfulness and plea for mercy and pardon on the basis of the righteousness of Christ. Thus I think we need to make a distinction between the objective fact of the relationship between God and his forgiven and justified saints as we see things from outside, and the very intensely personal situation of a soul who is placed in the presence of the Creator.
Frank said: I think this DE Fide statement sums up the Catholic dogma re Justification ” The sinner can and must prepare himself by the help of actual grace for the reception of grace by which he is justified”.
Interestingly, the only source I can find for this quotation is Ludwig Ott. Any idea where he got it from? I don’t deny it is true, but I think the way it is put is difficult and problematic and certainly open to misinterpretation. If we are talking about the initial reception of grace by one who is in original sin, then it is absolutely true that “the help of actual grace” is necessary for the “reception of [saving/justifying] grace”. The business about a sinner “preparing himself” for the “reception of [saving/justifying grace] must itself therefore be seen entirely as the work of God’s grace. This is, of course, a necessary corrective to the popular notion that Luther taught that the unregenerate sinner was like a “block of wood” until he had received saving/justifying grace – but I am not sure Luther ever taught it in the sense that that implies. Still, I think the way Ott states it goes beyond Catholic dogma in that it places the emphasis on the action of the sinner rather than upon the initiative of God’s grace.
Frank said: if you take the Little Flower’s example she prepared herself by her life of penance in the convent and was thereby made ready to receive God’s blessings.
True. That’s what I meant by judging her relationship with God objectively, or “from outside”. She, of course, did not choose to emphasise or dwell upon that point in her prayer to God himself!
Frank said: Also another De Fide statement which helps here “Besides faith, further acts of disposition must be present”. (And this is avaialable in Fr Otts excellent compendium of dogma.
Indeed, and once again the only source for this statement appears to be Dr Ott. Was he a Pope? Was he even a bishop? What is the magisterial authority of his compendium of Catholic Dogma (other than that he had an imprimatur for his book – a point that proves very little and certainly does not make his book a part of the Catholic magisterium).
But it must be pointed out that one of the fruits of the 20th Century ecumenical dialogue with Lutherans is that Catholics are beginning to understand that what Lutherans mean by “faith” actually includes much more than bare “belief”. It precisely includes what Ott asserts, namely other “acts of disposition”, such as trust in and charity towards God. Again this only strengthens my point: a better comprehension of Luther’s spirituality of faith would be beneficial to modern Catholics, who too often DO reduce faith to a matter of bare belief.
Son of Trypho said: It might be a profitable exercise to scrutinise material which is in accordance with Church teaching
Such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Such as the writings of the Holy Father and the magisterium? Such as the Fathers of the Church? Such as Scripture, even? Absolutely. I always do.
but surely you would recognise the potential dangers that such indulgence would have to the reader? …Based on the general level of cateche
tical instruction nowadays such a thing would be, IMHO, a mine-field for the average Catholic unless they were properly guided in their reading/intepretations.
Well, of course, what I am asserting is a job for scholars. Reading Luther’s own material can be very beneficial for many reasons, but I am suggesting that the job of re-evaluating his spirituality is a work for those who are well educated in both the Catholic faith and in Luther’s own writings. The analogy with the works of Origin hold good here too. Nevertheless, recognising that none of his writings can be recommended entirely and in every respect, even a lay catholic will benefit from reading such works as his Christmas sermons, or his Small Catechism (yes, I have quoted his meaning of the 8th commandment many times in a Catholic context – it is perfectly compatible with Catholic teaching but put in a much more pithy and memorable way), or even (yes, Vicci) his table talk!
And besides, how many people would be available to do this sort of thing?
Very few, I would imagine. Just as there are not many who are available to do this with the works of Origin. However, the fruits of this investigation could be made available to all so that it is not an “an elitist pursuit”.
Fr Damian, regarding the “New Perpective on Paul,” I believe this is presents a great opportunity for rapprochement between Catholics and Protestants. (BTW, I take Tom Wright’s perspective on the new perspective rather than Dunn or Saunders). That is, I don’t think Luther understood Paul in the way Paul originally intended him to be understood. For that matter, neither did Augustine. That doesn’t mean either was necessarily wrong about Grace and Faith and justification and all that. Understanding Paul in his own terms has its own benefits in enabling us to see beyond the medieval and reformation disputes.
I don’t know, Pastor Weedon, if the new perspective DOES come a cropper in Rom 7. Paul is specifically talking about the law as a “written code”. The new perspective does not divide the Torah into a “ceremonial” and “ethical” section, the former not applicable, the latter still applicable.
And now I had better post this before you guys get beyond me!
@David
I was thinking of Origen when I wrote my point earlier! Or really any complex theology/topic could apply.
Again, I’m uncertain as to how a non-scholar, or average Catholic if you prefer, could determine what would be suitable reading from his corpus? And how would one question or scrutinise the recommendations of those who profess to know? I think the exercise is more risky than profitable and would suggest avoiding such luxuries unless you were sufficiently grounded to begin with – something I admit readily that I am not.
David,
in response to Frank’s statement, “The sinner can and must prepare himself by the help of actual grace for the reception of grace by which he is justified,”
you say, “Still, I think the way Ott states it goes beyond Catholic dogma in that it places the emphasis on the action of the sinner rather than upon the initiative of God’s grace.”
I think you are right: Trent seems very careful when dealing with the justification of sinners to begin with a brief exposition on prevenient grace. Grace does not simply help us to receive the grace which will justify us, it first moves our hearts to conversion.
As to the need for “further acts of disposition,” this does not sound like a correct reading of Trent’s Decree on Justification 6:
“Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God.”
It is not so much that “acts” are required but that the grace of God disposes the human heart in a certain manner so as to receive the free gift of God’s justifying grace.
Louise “just a housewife”? An eclectic one then with a ?science degree.
Well, I meant “just a housewife” as opposed to a theologian! Indeed, while I know my limits, housewifery (wife, mother etc) is the greatest calling in my life.
And yes, as a pleasant little achievement along the way, I did gain a Bachelor of (civil) Engineering.
baggish: how David feels!
Mega-human, Louise. It’s one of the things that endears him to us.
Perfectly comprehensible.
Guys (and girls): I have removed a large no. of comments, not because they were not friendly, but because this isn’t a chat room. Sorry, but it gets hard for those who want to discuss the topics to follow the thread if they have to wade through chat. Even nice chat. Exchange one another’s emails. Do it in your own time! (it is like having a private conversation at the table during the after dinner port and cheese).
But David! This is where we all hang out – I certainly don’t have the emails of all these good people!
*****
syners = plural of simultaneously in cyberspace and sinner
Joshua said
“in cyberspace and sinner”
Simul in interreti et peccator
vel
Simul in tela totius terrae et peccator.
David:
“Well, friends, it seems as if I have to make myself a little clearer – although I am not surprised that I would be misunderstood. I expect that really only Peter is capable of making a real judgement on this issue – he, like me, has lived under both “regimes”!
Just a touch sycaphantic, David -and almost certainly untrue.
As your own story shows.
Unbridled admiration for the New.
Some bitterness, and other assorted feelings for that which has been left.
Hardly basis for ‘real’ judgement.
But, totally understandable. Very similar to divorce, one might imagine.
Vicci, may I suggest that something of your tone is a bit harsh toward David, and indeed others commenting? Why so bitter?
Now for my own ha’pennyworth…
1. What of the Theologica Germanica? (As I recall, an anonymous treatise of the Rhineland School of mediæval mysticism, a treatise rediscovered and published by Luther, who highly praised it: this would underscore David’s contention that Lutheran piety is in continuity with Catholic piety, and therein lie sparkling stones as Bl Ruysbroek would have said.)
2. What of Tauler, Bl Henry Suso, O.P., and the whole gang of mediæval German writers? – whom I believe some decades ago, before their rediscovery by Catholics, some Lutherans lauded as Lutherans before Luther – again, not because of any doctrinal deviation, but rather because their piety savoured of all that is good in Luther’s own devotional outlook (and clearly there has to be good in it else no one would ever have been attracted by it; more’s the pity that in his separation from Catholic unity he magnified opinions into heresies).
3. What of current Lutheran liturgical and paraliturgical books? – while visiting Fraser Pearce, I was able to peruse his very large collection of such: they seem to consist of a potent mixture of liturgical forms, more or less based on the traditional Western Office (in some cases virtually a straight translation from the Roman Breviary!), but with large slices from Lutheran authors and the Book of Concord; I was amazed that one LCMS publication went so far as to have a feast, not just of Luther, but of his wife – ! – with a bizarrely humorous letter of him to her as the appointed reading – !! – !!!
These Lutheran liturgical devotions clearly point to the existence of a sizeable and well-catechized pious laity: would that the like Catholic demographic were both flourishing and as well catered for…
******
David, can you give now some concrete examples of, say, prayers, ways of praying, etc., stemming from your Lutheran upbringing and ministry, that you value and profit from even and precisely now that you are in Catholic unity?
1. What of the Theologica Germanica?…2. What of Tauler, Bl Henry Suso, O.P., and the whole gang of mediæval German writers?
You are right on the money here, Josh. The German Theology, Tauler, Bernard etc. all featured heavily in my original lecture on Luther’s spirituality, but it all got a little archane for such a short session. I will email it to you for you to read for yourself. This part of the Luther tradition was largely forgotten by the later Lutherans, but rescued by the Pietist traditions. Still, it demonstrates that Luther’s theology was, as Bengt Hoffmann and Louis Bouyer both realised (and indeed as the current Finnish school attests) rather more mystical than systematic.
The coram Deo is the key, of course. Josh, that must have been our beloved Treasury you looked at. Yes, even some of us were scratching our heads over the letter to Katie!
A resource that might interest you also can be found here:
http://www.llpb.us/
The Brotherhood Prayer Book is pure Gregorian and a fine office book.
About examples of Lutheran piety that Rome could easily own as its own, I think above all of the morning and evening prayers. They both begin with the invocation and sign of the Holy Cross and then Our Father and Creed and finally (just the morning prayer for example):
I thank you, my heavenly Father, through Jesus Christ, your dear Son, that you have kept me this night from all harm and danger, and I pray that you would keep me this day from sin and every evil that all my doings and life may please you. For into your hands I commend myself, my body and soul, and all things. Let your holy angel be with me, that the evil foe may have no power over me. Amen.
Then one goes to work singing a hymn or whatever one’s devotion suggests.
“Chap. 5. On the Necessity of Preparation for Justification of
Adults, and Whence it Proceeds
797 It [the Synod] furthermore declares that in adults the beginning of that justification must be derived from the predisposing grace [can. 3] of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from his vocation, whereby without any existing merits on their part they are called, so that they who by sin were turned away from God, through His stimulating and assisting grace are disposed to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and cooperating with the same grace [can. 4 and 5], in such wise that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself receiving that inspiration does not do nothing at all inasmuch as he can indeed reject it, nor on the other hand can he [can. 3] of his own free will without the grace of God move himself to justice before Him. Hence, when it is said in the Sacred Writings: “Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you” [Zach. 1:3], we are reminded of our liberty; when we reply: “Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted” [Lam. 5:21], we confess that we are anticipated by the grace of God.”
“Chap. 7. In What the Justification of the Sinner Consists, and
What are its Causes
799 Justification itself follows this disposition or preparation, which is not merely remission of sins [can. II], but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts, whereby an unjust man becomes a just man, and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be “an heir according to hope of life everlasting” [Tit. 3:7]. The causes of this justification are: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Christ and life eternal; the efficient cause is truly a merciful God who gratuitously “washes and sanctifies” [1 Cor. 6:11], “signing and anointing with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance” [Eph. 1:13f.]; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, “who when we were enemies” [cf. Rom. 5:10], “for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us” [Eph. 2:4], merited justification for us [can. 10] by His most holy passion on the wood of the Cross, and made satisfaction for us to God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the “sacrament of faith,”* without which no one is ever justified. Finally the unique formal cause is the “justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but by which He makes us just” * [can. 10 and 11], that, namely, by which, when we are endowed with it by him, we are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and not only are we reputed, but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the “Holy Spirit distributes to everyone as he wills” [1. Cor. 12:11], and according to each one’s own disposition and cooperation.”
Seems to me you don’t like Fr Ott whose magisterial tome is second ONLY to Denzinger from which the preceding quote comes. These quotes are straight from the Council of Trent and are to believed by all Catholics.
Frank,
Can I assume that your responding to David?
I don’t have an opinion on Ott. My understanding is that Ott’s work is a precis of Catholic teaching. In my opinion, the only “magisterial” precis of such teaching is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
My preference is usually to go to the teachings of the popes and councils themselves. Thus, when we were discussing indulgences, my interest was in the Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences and not in the incredibly brief summary of the Catechism. Similarly, I re-read Trent’s Decree on Justification before posting above.
Denzinger is helpful for two reasons: it collates all these primary sources in one place and its numeration is used even in Vatican decrees – it’s not too hard to find the prior teachings referred to in an encyclical or in the Catechism.
I would be concerned on relying on a text which is a translation from the German… which is a precis of teachings in Latin… I think it could open itself up to problems.
“Exsurge Domine is an interesting read, which I have promised to post on one day in detail. Suffice it to say many of the doctrines that are spelled out there and condemned are not familiar to me from my own reading of Luther.”
Interesting that you say that, Mr. Schütz; at the website of the on-line edition of the Book of Concord there is a copy of Exsurge Domine, and the Editor’s note says that
“What is rejected in this document would form and shape the subsequent formal confessions of the Lutherans, ten years later at the Diet of Augsburg.”
(http://bookofconcord.com/exsurge-domine.php)
Also, you said that
“There is the possibility that Leo and his advisers were not well informed about what Luther actually taught, or (perhaps more likely) were familiar with only a very few of his writings.”
I think they knew quite well what Luther stood for; some of the propositions are extracted virtually word for word from, if I recall correctly, the 95 theses, and others come from remarks that Luther made at, if I recall correctly, the Leipzig disputation (these remarks were on the Papacy, Ecumenical Councils and Hussitism). I suspect that one could go through the list of propositions and match them to propositions in the writings and recorded remarks of Luther.
I’ll mention again that I would be interested to read your post on Exsurge Domine, and any other material on its composition, history, the Lutheran reaction to it (other than the fact that they destroyed any copies they got their hands on!), &c. As I showed, the Book of Concord website seems to think it's significant; what do Lutheran readers think of it? To which of the propositions would you assent? And how significant are those propositions in Lutheran theology?
As for the original topic of the discussion: obviously it would be collosally imprudent to recommend that Catholics read Luther's theological writings, and as for his spirtual writings/spirituality: since there's nothing of value in them that can't be found with Catholic spiritual writers, let's stick with those writers. And if there's anyone whose excommunications ought to be annulled it's Msgr. Lefebvre, Msgr. de Castro Meyer and the S.S.P.X. Bishops.