I was just trying to provide a little clarity on the use of “Social Popularity” being used by @StarMapp.
And modern scholarship is more complicated than that. Scholars currently view Luther as a man of his times with his own afflictions. Things like “heroic/evil reformer” and “honest theologian” are honorifics and would thus be excluded from objective academic discussion.
For the most part, what “I’ve tried to do here” is sit back and listen. I rarely comment, but watching Jon doing “here I stand” by himself, well… he needs to know he’s not alone. There is a fair amount of obvious Luther-bashing going on, the quote from “StarMapp” I commented on was a pure example.
In regard to scholarship, you make a great point about it being complicated. However, I am capable of defending my assertion, that there is a noticeable shift in Catholic Luther scholarship as I’ve described it. It’s not my theory. There have been a number of studies that document it. I can recommend some sources if you are interested.
Yes. You’ve made clear in the past your disdain for ecumenical dialogue, a rather antiCatholic approach, yet here you are in the nonCatholic forum inviting nonCatholics off the forum as if you had a say who does and doesn’t post.
I’m sure James doesn’t need your help in that decision.
Oh cease with the ad hominems, Jon. I just enjoy vigorous debate and I don’t care at all if someone’s feelings get hurt because they should be able to separate themselves from their ideas in the very first place.
And while you naturally assume a non-Catholic sub-forum of a Catholic website is targeted for ecumenism, I think it’s also an opportunity for lively debate.
Judging by many of the threads I see, I’m at least partially right.
Now could you please offer your thoughts on Rome’s supposed role as arbiter if she has no universal jurisdiction?
Sure. Here are a few English sources to start with.
Richard Stauffer, Luther As Seen By Catholics, (Virginia: John Knox Press, 1967)
Gregory Sobolewski, Martin Luther Roman Catholic Prophet (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2001)
I’m fond of Stauffer’s book. I have a lot of other references, but Stauffer is really a good place to start. Sobolewski is a more current treatment, basically echoing the same material presented by Stauffer back in the late 1960’s.
Simply stated, the paradigm that’s generally accepted is that Catholic historian Joseph Lortz was the turning point in Catholic Luther scholarship. Here’s an interesting observation from Pope Benedict (while he was still a Cardinal)-
Question: Where does Luther scholarship stand today? Have there been any attempts to research Luther’s theology, beyond existing historical investigations?
Cardinal Ratzinger: Nobody can answer this question in a few sentences. Besides, it would require a special kind of knowledge which I do not possess. It might be helpful,however, briefly to mention a few names which represent the various stages and trends of Catholic Luther scholarship. At the beginning of the century we have the decidedly polemical work by the Dominican H. Denifle. He was responsible for placing Luther in the context of the Scholastic tradition, which Denifle knew better than anybody else because of his intimate knowledge of the manuscript materials. He is followed by the much more conciliatory Jesuit, Grisar, who, to be sure, encountered various criticisms because of the psychological patterns in which he sought to explain the problem of Luther. J. Lortz from Luxembourg became the father of modern Catholic Luther scholarship. He is still considered the turning-point in the struggle for an historically truthful and theologically adequate image of Luther. Against the background of the theological movement between the two world wars, Lortz could develop new ways of questioning which, subsequently, would lead to a new assessment of Luther.
Yes and no, Jon. Catholic historian (and Trent expert) Hubert Jedin is purported to have said something like, Luther was never officially condemned by name at Trent, so Catholics have no official judgment on Luther binding them. See, Atkinson, p.30.
My Jedin notes are alluding me at the moment, i’m also on my way out the door.
I quoted scripture, and gave the context, AND the Greek word emphasized & highlighted in that scripture, and the definition of that Greek word from the Greek lectionary… Jesus validates Peter is the greatest and leader among THEM, (the apostles) ergo the Church as well. Their argument is over.
The context says, If I didn’t believe that, I would be following Satan NOT Jesus.
That’s your choice. You are continuing to argue a point that Jesus solved.
As I’ve said before, I disagree.
It can’t be argued with any success, to negate what Jesus already solved with the apostle’s argument over who is greatest among THEM. Jesus said it is Peter. Argument over. Anyone who keeps that argument going after Jesus settled it, Jesus identifies who the cause of that ongoing argument is by such a person. It’s Satan. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22%3A24-32&version=RSVCE