- Status
J
JustaServant
Guest
There was no such group called “Anabaptists”. The word was applied to several sects down through the centuries if they “Baptized again” (anabaptist), most of the time infants, not just adults. Zwingli was considered a radical reformer and his views were considered too radical at the time for many Protestant reformers.
Much of Zwingli’s views had thier roots in politics. And, I believe, he died in battle.
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
He was raised by a pagan father that supposedly was psychologically abusive towards him, instilling a fear in him of goblins. Throughout his break from the Catholic Church he would have fart and feces throwing contests with the devil. And for some reason often exposed his rump and would invite the devil to jump up it.
That’s kind of a mark of being a little off your rocker if you ask me.
He also was a very intelligent man and supposedly would go through great episodes of depression, locking himself up in a room, and stuffing his face with food. Then he would go through episodes of great bursts of energy were he would be vibrant and spend days writing like crazy. This seems to me to evidence he probably had bipolar disorder but it was undiagnosable back then.
You can find such explicitly stated on televised history shows and at other times implied. And I know it has been explicitly stated in more than one book, or rather, let me say that what was explicitly stated was “the Protestant Reformation.” One can infer from that Luther credited as its founder.
The big Hollywood movie Kingdom of Heaven implied the same thing throughout the movie. Apparently Protestants were at the forefront of the Crusades in the Holy Land except as the good guys.
Why do I say the movie implied they were Protestants and bringing the “light of reason”? All the good characters believed in (a) Jesus (b) confessing your sins without a priest (c) all Catholic clergy are bad, greedy, corrupt, bloody thirsty, and cowards (d) reason and not Catholic superstition or rituals guides one in the right direction.
Anyone loyal to the Church in that movie was a “bad guy.”
And I’m not attacking you or the Lutheran Church. But my comments are an attack of sorts of Martin Luther. I could offer similar views of Mohammad with his many wives, pedophilia relationship, and armed caravan robberies to finance his Crusade, without meaning to attack every Muslim.
But Martin and Mohammad are presented–to indoctrinate young and old minds–as noble, calm, saintly men of great wisdom and charity, while both Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church are constantly presented in the media as something other than what Catholics think the two are. Doubt and prejudice is what the architect try to sow. But one wonders why it is the Catholic Church the media sends to the cross with Jesus and not the Lutheran Church or Luther himself?
The answer might lie in asking their (the medias) master Satan. I’m sure it has something to do with “A house divided against itself can not stand” and accusing Jesus and his apostles to their lynched deaths. Or as the Buddhist view it, a great sin to divide the Sanga.
And let me say again my comments are not meant to suggest or imply Lutherans and Muslims are bad people. I’m sure many are better people than me. That’s not my point in my small critiques of their human founders.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
B
benjammin
Guest
I think that if there had been better Popes things were better. I also think part of the problem was that the Vatican was an earthly kingdom. They waged wars and fought to gain territory,and in that sense it was just another kingdom ruled by a secular ruler. I think that if the Pope had been just the head of the church like today, things would be way different. I also think this lead to a lot of leaders in other countries thinking that they were better than the Pope because he was just another ruler, even if he was supposed to be the head of the church.
Also, you are right that the nobles were the one who jumped on his ideas. They wanted more power than the Pope, and got it by supporting Luther’s Church and declaring themselves supreme rulers. However, Luther I think also felt as a German, a little wary of Roman Power.
J
JustaServant
Guest
Might be some uneducated lurkers…Thanks for the info, but the choir on my end already knows this song
JS
When I was a fundy Baptist they tried to make this claim about “anabaptists” being the first “Baptists”, using that wonderful history booklet “The Trail of Blood”.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
That’s a great point, often overlooked. The modern-day baptists (like the southern baptists) are not the decedents of the Anabaptists.Might be some uneducated lurkers…
When I was a fundy Baptist they tried to make this claim about “anabaptists” being the first “Baptists”, using that wonderful history booklet “The Trail of Blood”.
JS
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
How you doing, Pork? You must be trying to **** off visiting Muslims with that name? J/k lol.Time,
Here’s a thought that I have…for you that you might want to take advantage of: that University across town with the millionaire alumni (your words) has a very solid theology department. I see that they have a program: Luther Studies in a Catholic Context. The website link is below:
marquette.edu/theology/reformationtheologyatmarquetteuniversity.shtml
Here’s the program introduction description:
Thought: perhaps U of Milwaukee would let you take a few theology courses from Marquette for credit and you could share what you learn with everyone on CAF about the cultural influences of the 16th century.
On a personal note, the article references a Dr Hagen who started the program’s work some years ago. I dated his daughter, for a brief time and had him as a Professor.
I asked you on a previous post, do you know who Scott Hahn is? I’ll add a second related one…have you ever been to mass in the basement of Church of the Gesu?
Pork
I don’t recall the thread you spoke of. There are so large a number of forums on this board that I almost always lose track of threads I’ve posted in. Sometimes I remember posting in a thread–but may not remember its title–and can never find it again. Or usually I simply give up looking quickly.
I’ve read 1 or 2 books by Dr. Scott Hahn. And yes… I’ve been to Mass (during the day, during the weekday) several times in the basement of Gesu. I laid down and feel a sleep in there one day while I was briefly homeless. As you must know… the upstairs, main church, seems to always be locked during the day. Expect maybe the weekends or Sunday.
I don’t really have any ambitions or desire to take any theology courses at MU. Although, I’m considering trying to get into some other programs offering degrees there. Right now I’m weighing MSOE a little higher. I have quite a number of things to consider like age, job history, bio, ability to acquire debt, ability to pay off debt, possibility of retirement. If I could go back and do it all over again I’d know a second or third language, have paid tutors to help me be ready to ace the sciences, and I’d have a D.D.S. and M.D. degree as a Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon. But those degrees and the profession is not attainable for me now. Not likely.
But I have to do what I can from my own starting point or current position and map my road wisely and create my own “good luck” so to speak with what’s attainable for me now. Point being sciences are more prudent for me in my educational career now and not history or theology. And if I can pull it off I’ll probably be in school for at least another 9 years with a coast well over a quarter million. And if my gamble pays off well I’ll be able to pay some of it up front and pay whatever debt I incur off with or without the ability to ever retire.
Until I take care of my primary educational needs theology will have to wait. But if I did purse theology it would probably be at the Scared Heart School of Theology (I think its called?).
Fortunately for me I have no kids, I’m not married, and I don’t live in the slums of Venezuela. So, I still have some chess moves to make late in the game.
Pace.
J
JustaServant
Guest
I sure do need a source. My understanding is that fr. Martin was baptized on the Feast of St. Martin of Tours, hence his given name.
Source for this, too.
But, frankly, its irrelevent.
Again, a source.
All irrelevent to the thread. I wouldn’t dispute a bias against the CC in Hollywood, though “Passion of the Christ” is wonderful. But again, irrelevent to the thread.
And I could attack some of the corrupt and perverted popes of the past. Of what benefit is that? How does that impact a discussion of whether or not, presented with the modern CC, Luther would be convinced?
You’re asking the wrong person. Ask the media. And remember, when they attack Christ, they attack me as much as you!! We both preach Christ crucified. Your communion and mine stand shoulder to shoulder in protest of the attack on religious liberty in this country today.
Good, and understood, though I wonder aloud if there is a reason you link us to Muslims.
Assuming here just the nature of your post. 
Jon
B
benjohnson
Guest
If the fallen world screams against Luther, that raises him in my estimation! But remember, we don’t follow Luther as he obviously had many faults - we try and follow God.
I can’t answer for those that don’t hold our views.
What happened has happened, and I think my would be to dust off our evangelical hats and go out into the world.
My pastor is a Marine - and I remember him saying that this is great time and place to be a Lutheran in a paraphrase of Lieutenant General “Chesty” Puller:
“They are in front of us, behind us, and we are flanked on both sides by an enemy that outnumbers us 29:1. They can’t get away from us now!”
P
Porknpie
Guest
Time,
“Explore” if you can take theology course at MU and if they’ll be credited to MSOE or UWM. It’s an option and a good one.
Scott Hahn…do you know where he went to his first Mass…? Did you read about it?
Pork.
PS…go back and read the thread where you commented on MU having millionaire alumni…I commented on your post.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
This is simply not historically verifiable. Some polemicists try to take sparse information about Luther’s parents and make more out of it than is actually stated in the historical record.
When Luther’s father died, he wrote about it in a letter to Melanchthon:
JS
Thanks, James, I knew this didn’t sound right.
Time complains about the attacks on the CC in part of our society, and to an extent he’s right. Luther’s name, OTOH, has endured polemical assaults based on half-truths and rumors for a very long time.
Jon
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Thanks Jon- I put this together some time ago: Was Luther an Abused Child in a Dysfunctional Family?
This thread could become a full-time job. I probably won’t be able to keep up with it. It’s amazing though how popular negative caricatures of Luther still live on, despite the fact that serious Roman Catholic scholarship has moved on.
Keeping asking for sources, as you’ve been doing. That’s the key!
JS
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
Franz Posset has done a magnificent job in studies of Luther.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Yes! He’s recently written one of the best Roman Catholic books on Luther I’ve read in a long time (“The Real Luther”). Now, wouldn’t it be wonderful if Catholic Answers would interview him, and make his book available via their store?
JS
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
His book on Luther’s understanding of sola fide being drawn from Bernard of Clairveaux (as well as a large part of other areas of theology) is great, too.
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
Pork, I’m assuming by your questions Hahn’s first Mass was at Gesu? You’ll have to remind me of what the title of that thread is that my comment was in, as well as exactly what forum head to look for it under. I believe it was somewhere in apologetics but I lost that thread some time ago.
Because the author was a well-educated and “uppity” man from a Protestant background I perhaps naively have placed too much trust in historical rendition of Luther. Usually, I try to have some diligence of mind, remembering the source of your information (including inherent bias), and therefore try not to take every authors comments as absolute truth.
Perhaps the rendition of Luther I parroted is accurate or inaccurate. Perhaps it’s not a question of either or but one of degrees of accuracy. I don’t know. I do know he he was crass more than once and wrote some of the most hateful views about Jewish people.
Bear in mind I find the history of treatment of Jews by European Catholics to have been disgraceful. And I feel dark skinned Latin American Catholics–no matter their material poverty or lack of formal education–are better followers of Christ in their treatment and relationship with Jewish peoples.
These conceptions of “good” and “bad” becomes complex to me. I’ve said to people in the past that Martin Luther and Mohammad would make good case studies of the complexity of man and offer a lesson in how good men (as I think Mohammad likely was in many ways) have character flaws. Round rather than flat characters the departments of literature and creative writing might call it.
So, Tert’s quote of Martin Luther about his father reveals a more sentimental and “human” Luther. But I’m going to suggest to you that this is often the case with most people (maybe not psychopaths probably), including historical villains like Adolf Hitler I would bet. I would even bet Caligula had a sentimental and human side to him.
But this thread has enlightened me to something in particular. I had no idea Protestants were so emotionally connected to Luther. I’m not emotionally connect to any Pope except for those that I was aware of living during my life time. Any Pope prior to Pope John Paul II I have zilch feeling for. I suspect most Catholics are like that about Popes from decades or centuries ago before their life.
But the psychology of why people defend who they do is interesting to me. Most liberal atheists that sympathize with Islam over Christianity I note are quick to defend the prophet Mohammad. I like many Catholics defend John Paul II. And apparently Lutherans defend Martin Luther.
Even some Catholics will defend Luther. Mind you… they get very mad at me and view me as a “bad person” next to the “good person” of Luther when I make critical remarks, or bitter remarks about ethnic Black-American women. Mind you, Luther spoke worse about Jews than I have about Black-American women. He also divided the Catholic Church and helped facilitate in that way bloody wars across Europe. I have not.
The psychological and social processes by which people differentiate “good people” from “bad people” is an interesting one, and I usually don’t place any value on labels like “Catholic,” “Protestant,” “Muslim,” “law abiding citizen” and “criminal.”
As far as I’m concerned I am in certain ways (perhaps not all ways) a better man than either Martin Luther or Thomas Jefferson were. And I’m pleased with that.
Tert and Jon, I will have to admit my source on those claims I made about Luther came from one source. A very pro-Catholic source in a “triumphalistic” book. A book authored by a Protestant convert to Catholicism.
Because the author was a well-educated and “uppity” man from a Protestant background I perhaps naively have placed too much trust in historical rendition of Luther. Usually, I try to have some diligence of mind, remembering the source of your information (including inherent bias), and therefore try not to take every authors comments as absolute truth.
Perhaps the rendition of Luther I parroted is accurate or inaccurate. Perhaps it’s not a question of either or but one of degrees of accuracy. I don’t know. I do know he he was crass more than once and wrote some of the most hateful views about Jewish people.
Bear in mind I find the history of treatment of Jews by European Catholics to have been disgraceful. And I feel dark skinned Latin American Catholics–no matter their material poverty or lack of formal education–are better followers of Christ in their treatment and relationship with Jewish peoples.
These conceptions of “good” and “bad” becomes complex to me. I’ve said to people in the past that Martin Luther and Mohammad would make good case studies of the complexity of man and offer a lesson in how good men (as I think Mohammad likely was in many ways) have character flaws. Round rather than flat characters the departments of literature and creative writing might call it.
So, Tert’s quote of Martin Luther about his father reveals a more sentimental and “human” Luther. But I’m going to suggest to you that this is often the case with most people (maybe not psychopaths probably), including historical villains like Adolf Hitler I would bet. I would even bet Caligula had a sentimental and human side to him.
But this thread has enlightened me to something in particular. I had no idea Protestants were so emotionally connected to Luther. I’m not emotionally connect to any Pope except for those that I was aware of living during my life time. Any Pope prior to Pope John Paul II I have zilch feeling for. I suspect most Catholics are like that about Popes from decades or centuries ago before their life.
But the psychology of why people defend who they do is interesting to me. Most liberal atheists that sympathize with Islam over Christianity I note are quick to defend the prophet Mohammad. I like many Catholics defend John Paul II. And apparently Lutherans defend Martin Luther.
Even some Catholics will defend Luther. Mind you… they get very mad at me and view me as a “bad person” next to the “good person” of Luther when I make critical remarks, or bitter remarks about ethnic Black-American women. Mind you, Luther spoke worse about Jews than I have about Black-American women. He also divided the Catholic Church and helped facilitate in that way bloody wars across Europe. I have not.
The psychological and social processes by which people differentiate “good people” from “bad people” is an interesting one, and I usually don’t place any value on labels like “Catholic,” “Protestant,” “Muslim,” “law abiding citizen” and “criminal.”
As far as I’m concerned I am in certain ways (perhaps not all ways) a better man than either Martin Luther or Thomas Jefferson were. And I’m pleased with that.
- Status