How is Francis of Assisi different from Martin Luther?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BornInMarch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
benjohnson said:
There’s an interesting tidbit where a Catholic Pope speculates about Bishops who would make claim to be the Universal Bishop.

Pope St. Gregory I said:

“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others…You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of ‘universal’ upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God’s will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren.”

So here you have a pope, speculating on almost parallel lines with Lutheran contentions about the office of the Pope as seen in later years (in Lutheran estimation) - and using the same anti-christ language.

Source: orthodoxwiki.org/Gregory_the_Dialogist
Click to expand...
I think if you check the link “anti christ” in the article, it sends you a link by St. John of Damascus…discussing the Anti Christ as the one…"“It should be known that the Antichrist is bound to come. Every one, therefore, who confesses not that the Son of God came in the flesh and is perfect God and became perfect man, after being God, is Antichrist…He is, therefore, as we said, the offspring of fornication and is nurtured in secret, and on a sudden he rises up and rebels and assumes rule. And in the beginning of his rule, or rather tyranny, he assumes the role of sanctity. But when he becomes master he persecutes the Church of God and displays all his wickedness. But he will come with signs and lying wonders, fictitious and not real, and he will deceive and lead away from the living God those whose mind rests on an unsound and unstable foundation, so that even the elect shall, if it be possible, be made to stumble…”

Different context.
 
QuestLove said:
Martin Luther was considered a traitor? Wow, did not realise there were such strong feelings on that end.
Click to expand...
In our defense, let me point out that Luther was not someone who was never Catholic, but someone who started out Catholic and then left. (By way of comparison, you might try asking Eastern Orthodox what they think of the “Union of Brest” – a 1596 event in which a sizable number of Orthodox living in the Polish Kingdom became Catholic … if you’re brave enough ;).)

Nevertheless, I definitely believe we should try to be charitable toward Fr Luther.
 
JonNC said:
His actions were not in a vacuum. Even the Catholic Catechism recognizes fault on both sides. While it does not influence my view of the Catholic Church as a very positive force in the world, and the center of Christendom, Catholics probably ought not point an accusatory finger about “massive” bloodshed and persecution in the past. Neither of our communions has a spotless past.

Luther’s anti-Judaic writing in his later life are clearly offensive, though again not in a vacuum, and anti-Judaic sentiment was significant in the Church at the time. Again, neither of our communions has a spotless past.
I wouldn’t say Hitler was influenced by the writings, but as is typical of tyrants who are always looking for scapegoats, he did employed them to his end. It must be pointed out, however, while the anti-Judaic sentiments of Luther’s time was religion-based, that wasn’t the case for the Nazi’s. Their’s was race-based.

Jon
Click to expand...
I should probably use less inflammatory wording.

I will admit that the Catholic Church had problems which needed resolving (the fact that Francis even needed to reform it was evidence of problems). Heck, the fact that Rodrigo Borgia was ever allowed to see the inside of a church (let alone the Sistine Chapel) should indicate not

When I said “traitor” I meant it in a neutral way, not as an insult. By definition, a traitor is someone who leaves their old side and either joins another or forms their own. Whether or not this is justified depends on the situation, and is often the subject of debate.

I never said that all the bloodshed was Protestant orchestrated: both sides have bloody hands. But the atrocities committed by both sides might not have happened had a divisive schism like the Reformation not happened.

The incident with the Elector of Saxony was a specific example of Jewish families being forced from their homes and losing everything just because of something Martin Luther said.

I’m not calling Protestantism as a whole anti-Semitic, I am only talking about Martin Luther the person. The Catholic Church can’t be fairly blamed for the anti-semitism of someone who’s legacy derives from disagreeing with the Catholic Church; while I admit that the Church has not always been fair or just to the Jews, I will say that Martin Luther never included anti-semitism in his thesis.

Hitler’s motivations were never religious, and Hitler probably did not a God existed (if he did then he thought it was him [he had the narcissism of Caligula]). But being able to say “I’m not the first person to say this” probably helped Hitler gain followers. I think (or at least hope) that Martin Luther would be horrified if he found out his books were used (along with other works from other long dead authors) to justify genocide.

Once again, I hope to have a well reasoned and level headed discussion.
 
JonNC said:
His actions were not in a vacuum. Even the Catholic Catechism recognizes fault on both sides. While it does not influence my view of the Catholic Church as a very positive force in the world, and the center of Christendom, Catholics probably ought not point an accusatory finger about “massive” bloodshed and persecution in the past. Neither of our communions has a spotless past.

Luther’s anti-Judaic writing in his later life are clearly offensive, though again not in a vacuum, and anti-Judaic sentiment was significant in the Church at the time. Again, neither of our communions has a spotless past.
I wouldn’t say Hitler was influenced by the writings, but as is typical of tyrants who are always looking for scapegoats, he did employed them to his end. It must be pointed out, however, while the anti-Judaic sentiments of Luther’s time was religion-based, that wasn’t the case for the Nazi’s. Their’s was race-based.

Jon
Click to expand...
I should probably use less inflammatory wording.

I will admit that the Catholic Church had problems which needed resolving (the fact that Francis even needed to reform it was evidence of problems). Heck, the fact that Rodrigo Borgia was ever allowed to see the inside of a church (let alone the Sistine Chapel) should indicate not

When I said “traitor” I meant it in a neutral way, not as an insult. By definition, a traitor is someone who leaves their old side and either joins another or forms their own. Whether or not this is justified depends on the situation, and is often the subject of debate.

I never said that all the bloodshed was Protestant orchestrated: both sides have bloody hands. But the atrocities committed by both sides might not have happened had a divisive schism like the Reformation not happened.

The incident with the Elector of Saxony was a specific example of Jewish families being forced from their homes and losing everything just because of something Martin Luther said.

I’m not calling Protestantism as a whole anti-Semitic, I am only talking about Martin Luther the person. The Catholic Church can’t be fairly blamed for the anti-semitism of someone who’s legacy derives from disagreeing with the Catholic Church; while I admit that the Church has not always been fair or just to the Jews, I will say that Martin Luther never included anti-semitism in his thesis.

Hitler’s motivations were never religious, and Hitler probably did not even believe a God existed (if he did then he thought it was him [he had the narcissism of Caligula]). But being able to say “I’m not the first person to say this” probably helped Hitler gain followers. I think (or at least hope) that Martin Luther would be horrified if he found out his books were used (along with other works from other long dead authors) to justify genocide.

Once again, I hope to have a well reasoned and level headed discussion.
 
steido01 said:
Two things the Orthodox have never, ever joined Ol’ Marty in doing? :hmmm: 😃
Click to expand...
The Orthodox (some anyway) do both, I’m not saying they don’t. Only pointing out the difference between Francis and Luther. Another difference I might add is that Luther was more of a scholar than Francis who was more of a mystic.
 
The best retreat I went to was given by a Franciscan and it was his inclination that St. Francis suffered from post traumatic stress syndrome. The Franciscan worked with war vets, observed their behaviors and compared them to Francis’.

He went on to explain the history of the Holy Roman Empire, which was Orthodox, not Catholic, and how Perugia was Orthodox at the time and Perugia was papal. St. Clare was a blond, and of German Orthodox descent.

Anyway, young men in those days were hardened up for local wars slaughtering pigs and it is assumed Francis did the same. He went off at a young age with other young men, going off to France for adventure, and when he returned, he was most worldly.

Later, he and Assisians were called to war against the Perugians, and in Francis’ band, they slaughtered many and left their remains at the border of Perugia as a warning. Francis himself was captured and placed in a pit for a year and half and was later ransomed. Francis later said he made 4 Lents for penance. The penance for the confessional is totally structured for each and every sin. If you kill someone, you are given a full 40 day Lent. Because Francis had to perform 4 Lents, it can be safely assumed that St. Francis of Assisi, whose statue you see in flower gardens with the birds, was a former murderer.

Francis had two conversions, the first when he renounced all material possessions and went to live in a cave by himself in the woods, the second conversion was encountering a leper, because after his imprisonment in the ground, his self image so to speak was reflected in the leper. Later as he then had followers after working for about 2 years among the lepers, they went to a town and the mayor offered Francis to stay in this nice tower. Being in there, Francis almost went mad and had to get away from ‘the riches’ bestowed upon him.

He had a great sense of humor, but not all of that is actual of what you can read in the ‘Flowers of Francis’, but he did pretend he was making music using sticks and beating on something.

Francis’ favorite psalm was psalm 51, glorifying the Lord for saving him a wretch from the depth of the pit. It is being in a pit that took Francis to the edge of madness, and explained his extraordinary conversion, and total love of poverty. He said the Lord and Blessed Mother both were great lovers of poverty.

About Martin Luther, my pastor used a crude word to describe Leo XII. Pastor thought him the worst of popes. There was a Catholic theologian who had jurisdiction over Luther’s studies, and refused to meet with him. There were breakdowns in communication with Leo as well. Alongside this time, were movements of nationalism within Germany and Great Britain.

If Luther had hung in there, he would have become a great saint.
 
I wonder where this business of St.Clare being German Orthodox from this franciscan came from. I’ve never heard such a thing.Now, the Lombards and other german tribes did go into Italy.That’s where the area known as Lombardy got it’s name, from the Lombards. So St.Clare having blonde hair doesn’t surprise me.You have people in Spain with blonde hair and blue eyes who are descended from the Visogoths .
Maybe if Luther had been paitent and worked more with the Church things might have been different,and he might never have founded the Lutheran Church.We just don’t know.
Beside being anti semetic,there was a peasants revolt in Germany at the time,and I read where luther wrote to the nobles that they should crush the peasants.

Francis whatever his background lived in the days of people like the Cathars,who were found mainly in Southern France and Northern Italy. The lives of their religious leaders,the perfects was far different from that of many catholic clergy. There was also people like Peter Waldo and his followers the Waldesians,Henry the Monk, and others who also aimed at reforming the Catholic cHURCH AND WHO BELIEVED IN A POOR CHURCH FOR THE POOR, that the clergy should live and preached as the apostles did.
Francis was lucky in that the pope approved of what he was doing, the others named,not so much.
 
Hi Holly Dolly

Yes, according to the friar, Clare came from Perugia, which was part of the Holy Roman Empire, German King…she did have blond hair, and the conflicts between Assisi and Perugia were very intense, the two cities 20 plus miles apart, visible from their surrounding hills.

As the Orthodox Roman Empire began to fall, more and more of its subjects had their properties confiscated. There was alot of bloodshed between them.

Likewise, when Francis returned from France, he was most learned in the world, having experiencing everything.

So right off, Francis was as free wheeling and indifferent in contrast to Luther, who was very scrupulous, was a member of a most penitential monastery that seemed to cause him further introspection.
 
Saint Francis of Assisi was a good, holy, and humble man who truly helped to enhance the beauty of the Catholic faith by preaching against scandal and earthly pleasure and by teaching Catholics to be humble and obedient to God in order to better imitate Christ.

Martin Luther was a heretic who separated himself from God’s Catholic Church and established a precedent for thousands of protestant denominations that fell for his lies and are now auffering the unfortunate consequences of living outside the Catholic faith.

So, don’t anyone dare compare the two for even a second.
 
BornInMarch said:
I have a question.

Francis and Martin both tried to change the Church. Francis succeeded, and Martin became a traitor.

How else are these two different? Differences in beliefs? Differences in lifestyle and experiences?
Click to expand...
One wanted to reform from within and the other from without.
 
House_Harkonnen said:
Well, when Saint Francis started his order was accepted by the church. When Luther posted his thesis, hoping for an open discussion, they were rejected, he was demanded to recant, and a price placed on his head. Seems to me that if Luther were given the fair discussion he wanted, perhaps things would have been different.
Click to expand...
Saint Francis humbly requested vis-a-vis the order. He trusted in God’s providential guidance even when he saw corruption brewing, and did not try to take matters into his own hands. If Martin Luther would have done the same there would have been no reason for him to say the following regarding the bible supposedly being self-evident in terms of doctrinal truth:

"There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams’ (Martin Luther, cited in Leslie Rumble, Bible Quizzes to a Street Preacher (Rockford: TAN Books, 1976, 22).”
 
House_Harkonnen said:
Well, when Saint Francis started his order was accepted by the church. When Luther posted his thesis, hoping for an open discussion, they were rejected, he was demanded to recant, and a price placed on his head. Seems to me that if Luther were given the fair discussion he wanted, perhaps things would have been different.
Click to expand...
When Francis spoke, bishops wept. He lived such a Christ-like life that he bore Christ’s wounds, having been crucified by a Seraph. He brought those who were straying from the faith back home, including the clergy. He considered the voice of the Church to be the voice of Christ and was obedient to the end.

In both cases abuses were taking place by some of the clergy. Francis influenced the Church by his example of truly living the Gospel. Luther attempted to influence the Church through protest. Different tactics with incredibly different results. One helped to bring unity. The other brought separation and division.
 
The priest who headed our retreat had worked with war vets…as St. Francis of Assisi was.

I could not imagine how some ordinary person, irregardless of his family’s wealth, could still become the person he came. When I attended the retreat, it all made personal sense to me that Francis’ behavior, esp when he came into contact with things he ‘died’ from, he would almost go mad. It is said when he accepted to stay in a nice tower in town, it brought back memories, and he went outside screaming and ran away.

Likewise I didn’t know just how much Francis lived alone in the woods, and after his second conversion following his ransom from the prison in the ground, that he worked among lepers for 2 years, and in time began to draw followers.

The retreat master said he was going to go some place else, but the Holy Spirit led him to come to our area to give this particular retreat and our city is among the highest in the country for substance abuse and casual sex.

Likewise, as Francis was young and in the pit for 1.5 years, and prior, was very worldly wise when he returned from a life of enjoying the world in all aspects, he would not be surprised if St. Francis had been raped.

For the rest of Francis’ life, he daily prayed the Psalm 51, being ransomed from the pit. He never got over the trauma living in it.

When I stayed in Umbria, this family took me to one of the churches Francis had built with his own hands, when he misinterpreted the call to rebuild the Church.

Martin Luther was ahead of his times. The Church was greatly damaged by clericalism. He wanted more lay participation at the Mass.

In Francis’ day, people communicated only at most twice a year, the experience being visual, seeing the consecrated host lifted above this wall so the lay could adore him from the other side. I cannot believe the Church had worship evolve into this form…it was not like this…this clericalism in the Mass coming about 900 AD. Francis came in about 1200 AD.
 
What role did the German princes play? I know they much to gain from Martin Luther’s separation from the Church.

St. Francis was acting on his own.
 
Our retreat master said at the time of St. Francis, the Holy Roman Empire (Orthodox) was starting to crumble under King Ferdinand.

Nationalism fueled the break from the Catholic Church in Germany and England.

Francis was an soldier of Assisi.
 
St Francis was wealthy, debonair, life of the party, non scrupulous, frivolous.

Luther was very serious, had very disciplining parents, was a theologian who lived in a penitential monastery.

Both Luther and Francis later on, sought penitential lives.

It took some time before Francis experienced the great love the Lord had for him when encountering a leper.

Luther did not recognize the God of Love in the Catholic Church.
 
KathleenGee said:
St Francis was wealthy, debonair, life of the party, non scrupulous, frivolous.

Luther was very serious, had very disciplining parents, was a theologian who lived in a penitential monastery.

Both Luther and Francis later on, sought penitential lives.

It took some time before Francis experienced the great love the Lord had for him when encountering a leper.

Luther did not recognize the God of Love in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Hey Kathleen. I think Luther recognized Gods love in the Catholic Church. However he allowed the sin of man to obstruct his trust in God’s providencial guidance in terms of preserving doctrinal truth vis-a-vis faith and morals, at least in my humble opinion.
 
Do you think so?..From what I read, he was opposite of Francis, highly scrupulous. His parents were very strict. But reading his remarks and a few teachings after he broke away from the Church, he seemed very boisterous and animated, very lively. It made me wonder if he was that way as a child and his parents too strict on him…or he was a rambunctious type.

I think Luther was very literary minded compared to Francis who frowned on high learning. In fact, he did not want his friars to read books, but instead…and this sounds likewise a personality issue…that he wanted the friars to only look at him and his example. Luther was very much in to reading the bible and much singing than Francis who reflected on the Word of God and embraced poverty to an exceptional degree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top