Well, perhaps if you are writing a Doctoral dissertation. For my purpose it would be overkill. I would be happy with seeing the photo of the cover and the page.
Which one? The “…finishing touch” or “…just want to know whether it’s true…”. Either way, and not knowing the specific situation, I personally would estimate the odds of it being true as minuscule at best. If it were true and provable it would have been disseminated far and wide and be easily findable. After all, it is not hard to find copies of even books that have been proven to be forgeries and are still used against religions; how much easier would authentic ones be to find?
For the purpose of private conversation and not public academic paper.
It is not problem to find the book, but to find it in english.
However wrong Luther was in reality, there will be lots of false allegations against him including actual statements taken out of context. OP is right to be careful and to insist on a provable source.
No, people naturally resist any evidence they are given, that challenges their assumptions about anything. Where veneration of a personage is involved, this is especially true.
A very good book on Luther, that I read in college, is Young Man Luther by psychologist Erik Erikson. In a nutshell, Erikson brings out that Luther was a scrupulous young man who had certain issues with sexual continence, and that it ran him crazy, until he brought himself to believe that salvation is a free gift from God, attainable by faith alone.
I have had individual Lutherans in my life whom I liked very much, but this is no way to start a religion. Luther had more issues than Sports Illustrated.
Luther celebrated the mass throughout his life.
When do they claim he stopped?
Might even have been approaching National Geographic levels…
If there were any truth to it…it would’ve been big news. Like, really big news. LIke, the biggest news to hit since the Reformation.
Have you read the essay? In this essay Luther was not counseled by the devil to stop celebrating mass. The devil was attempting to use Luther’s celebration of the mass as a redemptive work when he was a Roman Catholic priest, as well as other past sin, as cause to condemn him, whereupon Luther relied upon the promise of his being baptized in Christ and forgiven of past sin to prevent him from despairing over his sin and to confound the devil. Seems to me a poor polemical argument against a Protestant, particularly if you haven’t read it.
why don’t you ask here maybe he/she has an answers.
I heard something in my youth that in a difficult moment he was screaming - He(Lord) Alive!
But I can not understand that question about conversation with devil.
I know that neo-protestants talk with God (pentecostal, charismatic)
And some of them say-God talks with them.
But I think even that subjective experience has to be tested by a Scripture.
Our biggest problem that during our life we frequently do not listen God’s whisper, and we make many mistakes in life, and later regretting but Luther’s talk with devil, I never heard about that
While I actually like some of the work of Erik Erikson (his model on theory of psychological development has some helpful things within it), I would take anything he says as a psychoanalyst and follower of Freud with a huge grain of salt. Pretty much the answer to every question in that realm of psychology is sex.
Are these evaluations based on some diagnosis?
It’s a figure of speech. I was simply referring to Luther having a lot of spiritual and personal issues. If he were among us today, I think he’d admit to as much. Everyone has issues.
Okay, but it is not a theological argument. It comes across as ad hominem
I don’t mean it that way. If Father Luther were in my midst right now, I would kiss his fingers as being those of a priest of God. He actually had some good points. Imagine if there had been an Internet and blogs back then — his would have been something to read! I would be all for his posting the 95 theses and having them discussed back and forth. Nailing them to the door might not have been necessary.
A man who likes beer and playing cards couldn’t be all bad
The best thing I can say is to read Erikson’s book and take the arguments on their own merits.
And I would do the same to Pope Leo X.
That would be hard to come by. The best I can produce is blog sites by followers of Luther who are not ashamed to admit that he actually said such things. For example:
What experience with the devil does he have to say this? Most strange of all, most striking of all, is one treatise where he is writing against a Catholic practice in the Mass, and in the middle of it he says: “The devil woke me up at night with this argument against me,” and then there’s a five-page argument from the devil, deadpan. Luther does not present this as symbolic or something, a deadpan argument where it turns out the devil is right, and you can quote from any part of that five-page argument, and it’s Luther’s view that’s being presented by the devil, because at the end, Luther responds to the devil by saying: “Devil, you’re right, you’ve got me—that’s a good theological argument; I have to repent. I was participating in this Catholic practice and it was sin, it was wrong—so, you’re right, I’m wrong, but I’ll just confess my sins, so I win,”
The author who wrote that excerpt is:
Phillip Cary (born June 10, 1958) is a philosophy professor at Eastern University with a concentration on Augustine of Hippo. He received his Ph . D . from Yale Divinity School under Nicholas Wolterstorff. He has written a number of books, including three published by Oxford University Press.
Institution: Yale Divinity School
As @JonNC pointed out, Luther, from his own point of view, celebrated Mass throughout his life. He called his liturgical reform the “German Mass”.
If I recall rightly what I read about that famous conversation during my studies, the devil reproached Luther, not that he had celebrated the Mass, but that he had celebrated private Masses. And Luther resisted, saying he had celebrated them carried by the faith and intention of the Church.
I did visit the Wittenberg castle once, and the guide pointed out a stain on the wall of Luther’s study, which she said had been made by his throwing his inkwell at the devil.
But if we are going to judge spiritual paths from the place the devil had in them, then what about st Anthony the Great, almost beaten to death by demons ? Or st Benedict throwing himself naked in thorns and nettles to resist the devil’s temptations ? I’m not sure that argument is a good one.
Where did you find it? I tried searching for it online, but all I could do is find people repeating the claims from the opening post, but not any actual copy of it.