Did the Catholic Church try to kill Luther

[vern_humphrey]

WanderAimlessly:

Aren’t worms high in protien? Or is that Locus?

PF

Right – the Diet of Worms was an early verison of the Atkins Diet.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[adnauseum]

dts:

What is a fundamentalist in your view? And, what do you think needs to be stopped?

Would you rather have avowed atheists in power than Christians? This makes no sense to me.

People should read *Catholicism and American Freedom *by John T. McGreevy.

It’s a scholarly history of the Catholic Church in America, focusing on the events of history as Catholics strive to live in an anti-Catholic culture.

 

[vern_humphrey]

adnauseum:

People should read *Catholicism and American Freedom *by John T. McGreevy.

It’s a scholarly history of the Catholic Church in America, focusing on the events of history as Catholics strive to live in an anti-Catholic culture.

The church I attended when I was in High School, Saint Mary’s of Batesville, Arkansas, was desecrated and burned by the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970s. The Klansmen who did it were all “church-going” fundamentalists – I knew one of them.

 

[dts]

Obviously, throughout history Protestants have discriminated against Catholics and Catholics have discriminated against Protestants.

My question remains. In modern day America, would you rather have atheists in power than fellow Christians? If yes, why?

 

[dts]

vern humphrey:

The church I attended when I was in High School, Saint Mary’s of Batesville, Arkansas, was desecrated and burned by the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970s. The Klansmen who did it were all “church-going” fundamentalists – I knew one of them.

So how is this relevant?

Are you going to argue that all “fundamentalists” are Klansmen or guilty of similar evil?

 

[TertiumQuid]

PAX777:

The papal Brief to Cajetan (23 August), which was handed to Luther at Nuremberg on his way home, in which the pope, contrary to all canonical precedents, demands the most summary action in regard to the uncondemned and unexcommunicated “child of iniquity”, asks the aid of the emperor, in the event of Luther’s refusal to appear in Rome, to place him under forcible arrest, was no doubt written in Germany, and is an evident forgery (Beard, op. cit., 257-258; Ranke, “Deutsche Gesch.” VI, 97-98). Like all forged papal documents, it still shows a surprising vitality, and is found in every biography of Luther.

Hello Pax,

One must be careful with information from the old Catholic Encyclopedia. It is not an infallible source of information (though it does provide very helpful * information). Some of the historical information is inaccurate (thus a need for the 1967 “New Catholic Encyclopedia”). Interestingly, the New Catholic Encyclopedia* does not use the article on Luther from the Old Catholic Encyclopedia.

There was indeed a forgery involved, but it was not with the words of Pope Leo mentioned above. Luther’s enemies had forged a set of theses on the papal ban and attributed them to Luther. The editors of Luther’s Works explain,

“Meanwhile Luther’s enemies forged a set of theses on the papal ban which they published under Luther’s name, and added a bitter attack on the venality of the Roman Curia. As soon as Luther learned of this, he published his Sermon on the Ban (the original preaching of which had suggested the forgery) in order to circulate his true views. The damage had been done, however, for Emperor Maximilian, who had seen a copy of the forgery, wrote a letter to Leo X, urging that immediate action be taken against Luther. This letter and the forgery caused the pope to send Cajetan, on August 23, an official communication commanding him to arrest Luther, to absolve him if he recanted, to use the ban and interdict to deal with him and his supporters if he did not recant. On the same day he wrote Frederick the Wise, requesting him to help arrest this “son of perdition.” He also planned with Gabriel della Volta, the general of the Augustinian Eremites, to have the provincial of Saxony arrest Luther over the head of Vicar Staupitz, who still remained friendly to Luther.”

Source: LW 31:255.(For any using LW electronic edition, note the typo of “August 28”- the actual text in book form reads “August 23”).

One of the best historical sources on the facts about Luther is the work of Heinrich Boehmer. Both Catholic and Protestant scholars recognize his ability with the “details”. He notes,

“{Leo X} authorized Cajetan on August 23, in a very bulky breve (Postquam ad aures), to arrest the new heretic without delay and to gaurd him carefully until further orders from Rome. Under the same date he asked the Elector of Saxony, in a second breve, to deliver up the ‘son of perdition’ to Cajetan; and in a third breve to the head of the Augustinian Order, Gabriel della Volta, he asked that a brother of the Order, equipped with all necessary authority, be sent to Germany in order to seize the heretic and schismatic Martin, bind him hand and foot, and case him into prison.”

Source: Heinrich Boehmer, Road To Reformation, 227.

Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm

 

[PAX777]

PAX

Thank you for the update. TertiumQuid

You learn something new everyday.

mike

 

[adnauseum]

dts:

Obviously, throughout history Protestants have discriminated against Catholics and Catholics have discriminated against Protestants.

My question remains. In modern day America, would you rather have atheists in power than fellow Christians? If yes, why?

Because with an atheist, I know what I’m dealing with.

Did you know that protestants formally and officially supported Margaret Sanger, and that she took full advantage of their support because she needed them to help her defeat the Catholic opponents to her Culture of Death?

With friends like that…

 

[dts]

adnauseum:

Because with an atheist, I know what I’m dealing with.

Did you know that protestants formally and officially supported Margaret Sanger, and that she took full advantage of their support because she needed them to help her defeat the Catholic opponents to her Culture of Death?

With friends like that…

Yeah. With atheists, you get 40 some million dead babies. Granted some atheists may oppose that, but most don’t. That system gives no reason to oppose it.

You might also get a lot of dead babies with some Protestants, but it is because they are being unfaithful to what they profess as are some Catholics. There are a whole lot of Protestants whose moral values are much in line with Catholic teachings.

This is somewhat off the thread topic so if you want to discuss further please start a new thread.

 

[alfred14]

Because with an atheist, I know what I’m dealing with.

Did you know that protestants formally and officially supported Margaret Sanger, and that she took full advantage of their support because she needed them to help her defeat the Catholic opponents to her Culture of Death?

With friends like that…

you sit in point out mistakes that people made that called them selfes protestant. anyone can call themself what ever they want. if you want to go by that look at the things that the people calling them selves catholic have done. its way worse, yes because they have been around longer. with luther, the church wanted him to go to rome because they knew he would get killed there. saying the church is not responsible for trying to kill him is like saying tha the people who worked in the concentration camps and sent the jews to the gas chambers arent responsible. instead only the guy pulling the switch is. The church did not like having its faults pointed out and did not want to see the revenue coming in from indulginces disapear. this is why they sent him to rome, to have someone else do there dirty work.

So yes they tried getting someone else to kill him. that way no blood would be on there hands, or atleast they would not have the guilt of killing someone. sounds to me like the ancient high priest.

 

[kepha1]

you sit in point out mistakes that people made that called them selfes protestant. anyone can call themself what ever they want. if you want to go by that look at the things that the people calling them selves catholic have done. its way worse, yes because they have been around longer.

Stop harping on Protestant myths. The Crusades were defensive wars, and the Inquisition was necessary. We know what went wrong and by whom, and for once you should compare the facts with the lies that have been propagated against Catholics for 400 years. The body count from the Protestant Inquisition is much worse than whatever Catholics are guilty of, according to Protestant and secular historians, so please knock it off.
The Protestant Inquisition

with luther, the church wanted him to go to rome because they knew he would get killed there.

Nonsense. There is not a shred of evidence to support this revisionism. The Pope gave Luther every opportunity to recant, even when efforts were made to manipulate the Pope with forged documents.

saying the church is not responsible for trying to kill him is like saying tha the people who worked in the concentration camps and sent the jews to the gas chambers arent responsible. instead only the guy pulling the switch is. The church did not like having its faults pointed out and did not want to see the revenue coming in from indulginces disapear. this is why they sent him to rome, to have someone else do there dirty work.

If Rome was as powerful as anti-Catholics keep telling us, how and why did Luther, a public figure, survive? They could’t find him??

Indulgences developed from reflection on the sacrament of reconciliation. They are a way of shortening the penance of sacramental discipline and were in use centuries before money-related problems appeared.

The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, “in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions” (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences. Poof! Another anti-Catholic myth exploded.

So yes they tried getting someone else to kill him. that way no blood would be on there hands, or atleast they would not have the guilt of killing someone. sounds to me like the ancient high priest.

Sounds to me you haven’t got any proof, just lies. Here’s a quote for you:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it…”
Joseph Geobbles

 

[alfred14]

the Inquisition was necessary.
I dont think it is EVER necessary to kill another human. 10 commandments? though shall not kill?

If Rome was as powerful as anti-Catholics keep telling us, how and why did Luther, a public figure, survive? They could’t find him??

 

[alfred14]

sorry the blue at the bottom didnt get errased from when i was quoting you.

 

[Trebor135]

Jesus died for our sins so why do we need to also pay for these sins? is the cross not good enough?

Penance, which follows absolution, is supposed to heal the wounds caused by the individual’s sinful conduct and help them on the road to theosis, to borrow the Orthodox term. Indulgences are the lightening of penance based on the merits of Christ and the Christ-bestowed merits of the saints.

so you agree it was wrong to pay for indulgences, so you agree with luther on one thing already.

.

we know yall no longer have to pay. but this here proves yall use to. which is wrong way way way wrong. and luther said it was wrong in the early 1500’s so the catholic church agreed with luther because they saw how wrong they were in letting these things go on.

Luther wasn’t a problematic figure because he opposed corruption in the Church; he was a grave dissenter from orthodox Catholicism by 1520 in these fifty areas. To quote Dave Armstrong:

1. Separation of justification from sanctification.
2. Extrinsic, forensic, imputed notion of justification.
3. Fiduciary faith.
4. Private judgment over against ecclesial infallibility.
5. Tossing out seven books of the Bible.
6. Denial of venial sin.
7. Denial of merit.
8. The damned should be happy that they are damned and accept God’s will.
9. Jesus offered Himself for damnation and possible hellfire.
10. No good work can be done except by a justified man.
11. All baptized men are priests (denial of the sacrament of ordination).
12. All baptized men can give absolution.
13. Bishops do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
14. Popes do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
15. Priests have no special, indelible character.
16. Temporal authorities have power over the Church; even bishops and popes; to assert the contrary was a mere presumptuous invention.
17. Vows of celibacy are wrong and should be abolished.
18. Denial of papal infallibility.
19. Belief that unrighteous priests or popes lose their authority (contrary to Augustine’s rationale against the Donatists).
20. The keys of the kingdom were not just given to Peter.
21. Private judgment of every individual to determine matters of faith.
22. Denial that the pope has the right to call or confirm a council.
23. Denial that the Church has the right to demand celibacy of certain callings.
24. There is no such vocation as a monk; God has not instituted it.
25. Feast days should be abolished, and all church celebrations confined to Sundays.
26. Fasts should be strictly optional.
27. Canonization of saints is thoroughly corrupt and should stop.
28. Confirmation is not a sacrament.
29. Indulgences should be abolished.
30. Dispensations should be abolished.
31. Philosophy (Aristotle as prime example) is an unsavory, detrimental influence on Christianity.
32. Transubstantiation is “a monstrous idea.”
33. The Church cannot institute sacraments.
34. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a good work.
35. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a true sacrifice.
36. Denial of the sacramental notion of ex opere operato.
37. Denial that penance is a sacrament.
38. Assertion that the Catholic Church had “completely abolished” even the practice of penance.
39. Claim that the Church had abolished faith as an aspect of penance.
40. Denial of apostolic succession.
41. Any layman who can should call a general council.
42. Penitential works are worthless.
43. None of what Catholics believe to be the seven sacraments have any biblical proof.
44. Marriage is not a sacrament.
45. Annulments are a senseless concept and the Church has no right to determine or grant annulments.
46. Whether divorce is allowable is an open question.
47. Divorced persons should be allowed to remarry.
48. Jesus allowed divorce when one partner committed adultery.
49. The priest’s daily office is “vain repetition.”
50. Extreme unction is not a sacrament (there are only two sacraments: baptism and the Eucharist).

 

[alfred14]

1. Tossing out seven books of the Bible.
   this is because he was focusing on mass producing the books for people to read and wanted only the books with God as the center point and the fact that some of the books athenticity are debatable.
2. Denial of venial sin.
   Jesus says all sins are equal, so how can there be differnt types?
3. Bishops do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
4. Popes do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
5. Priests have no special, indelible character.
   where does God creat these positons in the bibel? there all man made.
6. The keys of the kingdom were not just given to Peter.
   He nailed this one on the head
7. Canonization of saints is thoroughly corrupt and should stop.
   Nailed this one also. were all equal and to hold one man up as catholics do with saints starts to blure the line with worshiping others
8. Indulgences should be abolished.
   Jesus died for our sins. there for we our free from our sins when we die.

 

[pablope]

1. Tossing out seven books of the Bible.

this is because he was focusing on mass producing the books for people to read and wanted only the books with God as the center point and the fact that some of the books athenticity are debatable.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Because with an atheist, I know what I’m dealing with.

Did you know that protestants formally and officially supported Margaret Sanger, and that she took full advantage of their support because she needed them to help her defeat the Catholic opponents to her Culture of Death?

With friends like that…

Please be careful with say things like Protestants did this or that the word Protestant is a very side brush and includes a lot of those that did and would and still dont support Sanger. Rememeber there is not a one big all encompassing Protestant church and leader.

 

[Holly3278]

I am pretty sure that all of the Church authorities were as kind and gentle with him as possible. That said, I’d ask her to prove her assertion.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

you sit in point out mistakes that people made that called them selfes protestant. anyone can call themself what ever they want. if you want to go by that look at the things that the people calling them selves catholic have done. its way worse, yes because they have been around longer. with luther, the church wanted him to go to rome because they knew he would get killed there. saying the church is not responsible for trying to kill him is like saying tha the people who worked in the concentration camps and sent the jews to the gas chambers arent responsible. instead only the guy pulling the switch is. The church did not like having its faults pointed out and did not want to see the revenue coming in from indulginces disapear. this is why they sent him to rome, to have someone else do there dirty work.

So yes they tried getting someone else to kill him. that way no blood would be on there hands, or atleast they would not have the guilt of killing someone. sounds to me like the ancient high priest.

Proof. that the Pope wanted him Killed.

 

[puzzleannie]

I work for a public school district (as support staff) and in my journeys today I popped in a class where the teacher was talking about the Reformation. She is a Protestant so it was definitely one sided. She mentioned to the class that the Catholic Church had tried to hunt down and kill Luther for 15 years. I have never heard or read this anywhere. Has anyone else? Where would I find this information?

very politely ask for a source, and remind the teacher that the district must have some guidelines about not making stuff up in history classes, but requiring actual use of historical sources, especially for the more outrageous claims. I don’t say threaten to take her job away from her if she continues to shame the honorable history profession, but you can think it.