Luther! Read Read!

[angelmessenger]

**Hi Edwin,

I believe him because he uses quotes from Luther’s own writings.

Quotes from Martin Luther’s “On the Jews and their lies,” 1543
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

They are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as arch-thieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security.
Did I not tell you earlier that a Jew is such a noble, precious jewel that God and all the angels dance when he farts?

…but then eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God’s anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them! .

In brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule-- if my counsel does not please your, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews, lest we become guilty sharers before God in the lies, blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, this dear mother, all Christians, all authority, and ourselves. Do not grant them protection, safe-conduct, or communion with us. . . . With this faithful counsel and warning I wish to cleanse and exonerate my conscience.

Let the government deal with them in this respect, as I have suggested. But whether the government acts or not, let everyone at least be guided by his own conscience and form for himself a definition or image of a Jew.

However, we must avoid confirming them in their wanton lying, slandering, cursing, and defaming. Nor dare we make ourselves partners in their devilish ranting and raving by shielding and protecting them, by giving them food, drink, and shelter, or by other neighborly acts…

Therefore we Christians, in turn, are obliged not to tolerate their wanton and conscious blasphemy.

Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire…

Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted…

Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country…

Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it…

He who hears this name [God] from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away.
…that everyone would gladly be rid of them.

They [rulers] must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did…

If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs.

My essay, I hope, will furnish a Christian (who in any case has no desire to become a Jew) with enough material not only to defend himself against the blind, venomous Jews, but also to become the foe of the Jews’ malice, lying, and cursing, and to understand not only that their belief is false but that they are surely possessed by all devils. May Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully and preserve us steadfastly and immovably in the knowledge of him, which is eternal life. Amen.

Addendum folowing in next post

]**

 

[angelmessenger]

Addendum: a note to critics

Because of my pointed aim at revealing the anti-Jewishness of Martin Luther, I have received accusations that I’ve unfairly painted Luther in a bad light over the alleged “good” he’s done in the name of Christianity. I want to briefly make clear my position on this.

Although I can certainly understand, from a perspective of a Protestant, Luther appears to have freed believers from the dependency of an orthodox hierarchy of God-Church-Man, and promoted the vaunted ideals of Christianity, I cannot imagine a more circular argument based entirely on superstitious beliefs. Nor has Luther’s Protestantism shown a freeing effect on the lives of its believers when you take account of the paranoid-like protection of its tenets, the theologically based justification of war, cruelty against enemies, and the reliance on faith in place of scientific reasoning.

However, I fully grant that Luther, in his Ninety-Five Theses, may have called for the ending of indulgences and this, I think, could put him in some regard. (Note that although people generally believed that Luther nailed these theses to the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, some scholars have questioned this story, which does not occur in any of his own writings). But on the evidence from his voluminous tomes, I can find little else to admire the works of this man.

Luther not only wrote ‘On the Jews and their lies,’ but also dubious and intolerant works such as ‘Against the Sabbatarians’, ‘Against the Antinoman,’ and ‘Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants.’ In the latter, Luther called for the stabbing and slaying of peasant rebels which triggered the death of an estimated 100,000 human beings. These rebels were not only Christians but were mostly slaughtered after their surrender to the German princes. Nor did Luther apologize for his treatise even after world criticism. In his response to his critics in “An Open Letter on the Harsh Book,” Luther reiterated his venom: “Therefore, as I wrote then so I write now; Let no one have mercy on the obstinate, hardened, blinded peasants who refuse to listen to reason; but let everyone, as he is able, strike, hew, stab, and slay, as though among mad dogs, put to flight, and led astray by these peasants, so that peace and safety may be maintained.” In all these harsh treatises, Luther provided an abundance of Biblical passages to justify his attack on his enemies. And, or course (sarcastically speaking), his actions were always through Christian “love” of his enemies, as he audaciously wrote: “The merciless punishment of the wicked is not being carried out just to punish the wicked and make them atone for the evil desires that are in their blood, but to protect the righteous and to maintain peace and safety. And beyond all doubt, these are precious works of mercy, love, and kindness. . .” [Bold characters, mine].

I not only hold against Luther’s Jewish hatred and his merciless attacks against his enemies, including Catholics, Protestant peasants, Turks, atheists, and infidels, but also because of his extraordinary intolerance, adherence to faith and superstition, unworkable morality, and his rejection of reason and science. I cannot imagine a man who has spread more dangerous beliefs than Martin Luther.

And no one should ever forget that his justification for these atrocious works came entirely from Christian Protestant beliefs fueled by the Bible. I don’t know how Protestant Christians will react when faced with the realization of Luther’s mad intolerance, but they will have to deal with the fact that this man stands as the Inventor and Creator of their Christian denominations

Jim Walker

Does he sound like a “prophet of God” Or a saint as I have heard people name him?

God bless

jan

 

[Contarini]

Catholic Dude,

My apologies for not responding sooner. It’s ridiculous that I’ve been wasting all this time answering all sorts of other arguments and have not taken the time to get back to your very serious and thoughtful posts. But precisely because your posts are substantive, they take a bit more time and energy to answer. Here’s another installment, anyway.
Catholic Dude:

Here is what I was reacting to what Luther said (post31):In open contradiction to the Scriptures, our opponents [ie catholics] misquote, “He that believeth in Christ is condemned, because he has faith without works.” Our opponents turn everything topsy-turvy. They make Christ over into a murderer, and Moses into a savior. Is not this horrible blasphemy?
Do you think the CC really talked like this? This is pure lies and smearing the “opponent”. The conclusions he forms are pure slander and proof to me of an agenda that was so biased that he would even condemn Jesus for not being Christian.

With all due respect, the last sentence of your post is doing exactly what Luther is doing, and so functions as a reply to what you say earlier. In other words, of course the Catholics didn’t/don’t “make Christ over into a murderer,” any more than Luther “condemned Jesus for not being Christian.” But in heated polemical rhetoric, one tends to attribute to the opponent a ridiculous position which one thinks follows from what the opponent is saying. That’s what Luther is doing, and that’s what you are doing. I’ve done it myself. It’s not a good idea, whoever does it, unless you can do it in such a way as to get the opponent either to see the error of his ways or to prove your exaggeration unjustified.

The truth behind what Luther is saying is that his opponents were saying that someone who had the kind of faith Luther taught would be condemned. Of course Luther draws extreme conclusions from this, just as you conclude from Luther’s lame response to Matt. 19 that Luther would “condemn Jesus.” And BTW, I doubt that Luther’s opponents understood what he was teaching very well themselves–they probably had the same misunderstandings the folks on this forum do. Luther’s teaching is a bit hard to get your mind around if you aren’t disposed to receive it. (I’m not claiming that if you aren’t so disposed you somehow lack spiritual understanding, only that Luther’s teaching appeals to people with certain kinds of spiritual issues, and if you don’t have those, or if you have a lot of prejudices against Luther, then it’s easy to miss the point.)

I dont see how I misrepresented him in that passage you cited. I see him say on one side of his mouth “we know good works need to be done” but on the other “works have no part in justification”. The issue is that he does say they are needed, but Catholics say How can you separate works from justification and still say it is needed?

Well, that is relatively simple. Classical Protestants don’t think that justification is the only part of the Christian life. Catholics have a more holistic definition of justification, as the entire process of becoming righteous. Classical Protestants (mostly Lutherans and Calvinists; those who follow the teachings of the Reformers as codified in the historic Protestant Confessions) see justification as our judicial acquittal before God, leading to (rather than resting on) a life of holiness. In the classical Protestant view, we do good works because we have been justified, not in order that we may be justified. That’s the key concept to grasp if you want to understand the Reformers.

 

[Contarini]

Me: Luther basically teaches that sins dont affect justification.
Luther: Good works are 100000000% required, just not part of justification.
Me: I conclude sins dont affect justification.

Not directly, no. But for Luther, as I understand him, a fully deliberate *decision *to sin (as opposed to a fall into sin out of weakness followed by repentance) is incompatible with faith and thus either shows that one has not been justified or results in one losing faith and hence no longer being justified. (For the Reformed, only the first option was open, since they taught that all who have true faith will persevere–the teaching that became OSAS.)

Again, I agree but dont see how part1 is prevented.

I don’t know what “part 1” is. If you mean the first section you excerpted, in which I talked about God wanting us to be holy, then of course it’s not “prevented.” That part is basic and is believed (I hope) by all Christians. You’ve kind of lost me here. Maybe I’ve lost you! I was deliberately beginning with basic, uncontroversial stuff to show how the logic of Luther’s position develops.

Our sins are fogiven, not covered up.

You don’t explain what you think the difference is. I think the difference between what you mean by “forgiveness” and what Luther means is that Luther thought that sin is something we are rather than primarily something that we do. For Luther, our urges and desires are themselves sinful. Sin pervades our being as fallen creatures. So God’s forgiveness must be continual. It’s not simply a matter of asking forgiveness for an isolated past deed and then being in a state of grace until we sin again. No, for Luther we sin continually and thus need continual forgiveness–hence his metaphor of “covering up.” This doesn’t mean that we don’t strive for holiness–simply that we can never base our standing with God on the success of that struggle, because in this life our efforts are always woefully imperfect.

We are new creations and enabled to do good pleasing works. Im not sure where “the Law” comes in, that seems to be the misconception right there. The Law is gone, that word is not used for Christians,

This strikes me as an extremely odd position. I’m pretty confident that it’s not orthodox Catholic theology. It is actually (as far as I can tell) considerably more radical and unorthodox than traditional Protestantism!

St. Thomas Aquinas regularly speaks of the Gospel as the “new law.” (See ST Prima Secundae 106-108.) The Catechism follows suit (1965-74). I’m not sure where you are getting this from, but it doesn’t appear to be Catholic teaching.

it is stated over and over again by Paul that the Law cant be kept, so what is the “fall short” stuff?

With all due respect, you seem to be very confused about your own Church’s teaching–unless I’m seriously misunderstanding you. The traditional Catholic view as I understand it is that the Old Law cannot be kept because it is external. But the New Law, as the Catechism puts it (1968), “proceeds to reform the heart, the root of human acts,” and thus enables what was previously impossible. Again, see Aquinas, ST I-II Qu. 107 Art. 2.

If law is not a term used by Christians, why are Catholics always talking about natural law? Of course the law remains binding on all human beings, and of course we all fall short of it at times. That should be a given.

Edwin

 

[dennisknapp]

Contarini:

Catholic Dude,

My apologies for not responding sooner. It’s ridiculous that I’ve been wasting all this time answering all sorts of other arguments and have not taken the time to get back to your very serious and thoughtful posts. But precisely because your posts are substantive, they take a bit more time and energy to answer. Here’s another installment, anyway.

With all due respect, the last sentence of your post is doing exactly what Luther is doing, and so functions as a reply to what you say earlier. In other words, of course the Catholics didn’t/don’t “make Christ over into a murderer,” any more than Luther “condemned Jesus for not being Christian.” But in heated polemical rhetoric, one tends to attribute to the opponent a ridiculous position which one thinks follows from what the opponent is saying. That’s what Luther is doing, and that’s what you are doing. I’ve done it myself. It’s not a good idea, whoever does it, unless you can do it in such a way as to get the opponent either to see the error of his ways or to prove your exaggeration unjustified.

The truth behind what Luther is saying is that his opponents were saying that someone who had the kind of faith Luther taught would be condemned. Of course Luther draws extreme conclusions from this, just as you conclude from Luther’s lame response to Matt. 19 that Luther would “condemn Jesus.” And BTW, I doubt that Luther’s opponents understood what he was teaching very well themselves–they probably had the same misunderstandings the folks on this forum do. Luther’s teaching is a bit hard to get your mind around if you aren’t disposed to receive it. (I’m not claiming that if you aren’t so disposed you somehow lack spiritual understanding, only that Luther’s teaching appeals to people with certain kinds of spiritual issues, and if you don’t have those, or if you have a lot of prejudices against Luther, then it’s easy to miss the point.)

Well, that is relatively simple. Classical Protestants don’t think that justification is the only part of the Christian life. Catholics have a more holistic definition of justification, as the entire process of becoming righteous. Classical Protestants (mostly Lutherans and Calvinists; those who follow the teachings of the Reformers as codified in the historic Protestant Confessions) see justification as our judicial acquittal before God, leading to (rather than resting on) a life of holiness. In the classical Protestant view, we do good works because we have been justified, not in order that we may be justified. That’s the key concept to grasp if you want to understand the Reformers.

Edwin,

Thank you for being on this forum. Your post are both informitive and refreshing. I know we don’t always agree, but you seem very thoughtful and honest in your faith.

May God bless whatever road you choose (hopefully into the Catholic Church).

Peace

 

[angelmessenger]

**Hi Edwin,

I have to point out, as I have done before, that the Catholic Church does not stand on the holiness of it’s members, but the Truth handed down by the Apostles, which Christ promised. he would —“be with always even to the consummation of the world” and that “the gates of hell would not prevail against it” So regardless of the sinners, within and without, the Church will stand.

Luther wrote those words, which I can tell you did horrify me when I read them, yet he is the founder of a movement whose ‘word’ is to believed! Now we have 33,000 denominations because of his belief in his own self-interpretation of scripture. I’m astonished to say the least!

God bless

jan**

 

[Contarini]

Catholic Dude:

Over and over again Paul and James talk about Abraham who never heard of the Law, yet Abraham did good works.

They had never heard of the Mosaic Law. But everyone has heard the voice of the natural law written on the human heart. I think the problem is that when you hear Luther speak of “the Law” you assume that he’s speaking of the Mosaic Law, when in fact he primarily means the eternal moral Law of which the Mosaic Law is simply one (albeit divinely inspired) specific cultural manifestation.

I cant ignore him when I see people who desire to be good Christians subscribing to such views.

But I suspect that the people you are thinking of don’t in fact subscribe to Luther’s views at all. Sure, their views ultimately go back to Luther, and beyond him to Augustine and Paul and Jesus and the ancient Hebrews! But they don’t agree with everything Luther taught any more than they agree with everything Augustine taught or (we would both say) with the teaching of Holy Scripture taken as a whole.

The whole point of that OP quote is that it is so damming to what the average joe faith alone OSAS protestant holds dearly to.

No, it’s really not, because what they mean by “faith alone” has undergone serious transformations since Luther (where are the sacraments in their understanding, for instance? They’re so far from following Luther that they think his sacramental theology was some kind of extraneous survival of his Catholic heritage, when in fact it’s central to his doctrine of faith), and OSAS wasn’t Luther’s teaching at all. So quoting Luther is not very relevant to these people.

They dont make the logical connection that 1000 murders/fornications really dont hurt their salvation (under the FA system), but when they realize it are too shaken to admit it or change.

I’m afraid it’s not that simple. Some of them really do believe (without you “pointing it out” to them) that a true Christian might live a flagrantly immoral life without ever repenting, and still go to heaven. Certainly they would not believe this if it hadn’t been for Luther–but then they also wouldn’t believe it if it hadn’t been for Jesus’ death on the Cross (the meaning of which they so horribly pervert). In other words, Luther’s presence in the historical chain of ideas leading to this vicious nonsense doesn’t make him responsible. I’ve tried to show you–and I don’t see how you can fail to be convinced–that Luther’s teaching as a whole provides safeguards against someone thinking it was OK to plunge into a life of moral debauchery. If they want to take Luther out of context, then that’s their problem. You don’t need to follow suit in order to make a cheap polemical point.

Most OSAS folks, though, have safeguards of their own, surviving (though much weakened) from their Reformed progenitors. Namely, they think that a person who has truly believed in Christ will, on the whole, strive toward holiness. This is not that different from Luther’s own view, except for the unfortunate addition of OSAS (and the omission of Luther’s sacramental theology, but that’s another issue). I fail to see what you think you would be proving by pointing out Luther’s quote to these people. If you fail to give them the context I have given you (which now that it’s been pointed out to you would be blatant dishonesty on your part), they may be very shocked and decide that Luther is a bad guy. But since they already disagree with him on countless points, they’ll just add this to the list.

And suppose you do bamboozle some poor person into thinking that this quote disproves Protestantism? You will simply be guilty of serious sin in doing this, since there is no logical reason to think this whatever.

Let me review the reasons why this is so:

1. Luther himself believed that while the sins of a believer do not themselves affect justification, no one can deliberately plunge into a life of sin (“give himself over to sin” were Luther’s words, if you recall) and retain saving faith.
2. Many (I’d argue most) OSAS faith-alone Protestants today hold a similar view, except that they don’t think you can lose saving faith (unlike Luther). They think that a person’s life provides evidence of whether he/she is “really a Christian” or not. I think that this is back-to-front and convoluted, as is Luther’s position. But it’s not incoherent or illogical. It makes sense if you accept its premises.
3. Most seriously, OSAS believers generally reject many aspects of Luther’s teaching, so quoting Luther is really not very relevant. It may have a psychological effect on them because many of them have been taught (erroneously) that Luther’s teachings on salvation are essentially the same as theirs. But exploiting psychology instead of relying on sound reason is an immoral thing to do.

 

[Contarini]

And the consequences have been show as clear as day especially today that divorce/fornication to most Protestants is no big deal precisely because they think in terms of Faith and Justification not relying on works.

There are several problems with this argument:

1. Most (not all) Protestants would say that divorce is legitimate in some circumstances (those who condemn divorce outright are far better at enforcing this than Catholics are, mostly because they are small, closely-knit groups), and that once divorce has occurred a person is free to remarry. I deplore this, but it has nothing to do with the question of faith and works, because they don’t think that the actions in question are sins at all.
2. I’ll grant that the modern evangelical understanding of “faith alone” probably does play some role in attitudes to divorce and sexual morality generally. But it’s not clear to me that Catholic practice is any better. The divorce rate among Catholics is extremely high as well–they just respond to it differently. They either get an annulment or they leave the Church altogether (or in some cases stop receiving communion but keep going to Mass). Catholics engage in all sorts of immoral behavior condemned by the Church, and at least some Catholics definitely reason that they can go to confession and be forgiven. Both Catholic and Protestant teaching can be twisted to support a sinful lifestyle. Unless you can show me evidence that ordinary Catholics are more moral than ordinary Protestants (which I highly doubt), your argument has no weight. That’s not to say that having a standard to which one doesn’t adhere is valueless, only that such behavior is more common if anything among Catholics than among Protestants. Protestants are more likely to reshape the moral law to their liking–which I’d agree is worse but which has nothing to do with faith vs. works.

This was my point about “personal morality” in an earlier post, which Sherlock has persistently misinterpreted. To show that faith vs. works has a bad effect on Protestant morals, you have to show that Protestants think they can do things with impunity that by their own admission violate the moral law. There are Protestants who act this way. But by and large, historically, Protestant morality has been quite strict. If anything, Protestants historically (especially Calvinists) are more uptight about doing good works than Catholics. The Protestant doctrine of justification may be wrong (I think on a number of points it is), but (especially in its Calvinist form) it certainly succeeds in getting people to be zealous about good works.

the X, Yand Z are Christ and the Saints. I nor the CC ever said that a “loving relationship” was not required via faith, but when he goes as far as to condemn Christ and the Saints whatever he is trying to get across to me is seriously lacking.

He’s not condemning Christ and the Saints. As you noted when Luther used these tactics, this kind of rhetoric is less than helpful! The “X. Y, and Z” are the “examples of Christ and the Saints.” In other words, if you tell people “if you don’t follow Christ and the Saints, you will be damned,” then, Luther would argue, you drive them to despair. Because who can hope to live up to such a standard. Rather, you tell people to throw themselves on God’s mercy, and then (wonder of wonders) they will find the power of the Holy Spirit working in their lives and they will follow the examples of Christ and the Saints (even though they will fall short in many ways).

How is this condemning Christ and the Saints?

Fear is a great driving force. Proverbs 1 says the Fear of the Lord is the first stage of wisdom.

And Luther would say that yes, fear is a driving force. But it drives us to despair, which (if God is merciful on us) will lead us to flee to Christ. Luther did not think that someone could possibly please God by deeds done out of the fear of punishment. And in a sense he was perfectly orthodox in saying that–Catholic theology agrees that fear without love cannot lead to meritorious works.

Edwin

P.S. It may be a while before I respond to the rest of your posts. Sorry for the delay, and thanks for your patience!

 

[Contarini]

**

Luther wrote those words, which I can tell you did horrify me when I read them, yet he is the founder of a movement whose ‘word’ is to believed! Now we have 33,000 denominations because of his belief in his own self-interpretation of scripture. I’m astonished to say the least!

God bless

jan**

Let me put this as simply as I can.

You will get nowhere with this argument, because Protestants don’t give Luther the kind of authority you’re assuming they do. No one thinks that all Luther’s words are to be believed. You’re barking up the wrong tree.

If you’re uninterested in understanding Luther’s words in context, then ignore them. Because quoting them out of context is pointless.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

**Hi Edwin,

I believe him because he uses quotes from Luther’s own writings.

**

That’s almost unbelievably naive. Are you seriously saying that if I have some quotes from the Catechism you will believe any assertion I make about Catholicism?

I’m not asking you to disbelieve what is stated in the quotes. But how do quotes from Luther tell us anything about what other sixteenth-century figures said, which is the point under dispute? Walker claims that Luther went beyond other figures of his day. He has provided no evidence for this. Why do you believe it?

Furthermore, the most damning quote he gave in his essay-- that Luther said that Christians were at fault for not killing Jews–was not in the list of quotes at the end. Don’t you find this suspicious?

I repeat, why do you believe this guy? Any propagandist can get a few quotes together to make his claims seem believable. Your blatant prejudice and disregard for the truth is showing.

Edwin

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Contarini,

They had never heard of the Mosaic Law. But everyone has heard the voice of the natural law written on the human heart. I think the problem is that when you hear Luther speak of “the Law” you assume that he’s speaking of the Mosaic Law, when in fact he primarily means the eternal moral Law of which the Mosaic Law is simply one (albeit divinely inspired) specific cultural manifestation.

One quick question/comment. The place where I am getting this talk on “the Law” is from Luther’s commentary on the Galatians. Maybe I dont know, but I have read Galatians a few times and Paul is specifically mad at the Galatians for wanting or even getting circumcised and wanting/following the Law. When I say “Law” I mean the Law of Moses, from what I understand that is the way the Bible uses that word for the most part.

There is such thing as other “natural laws” but those are not what Im getting at, those from what I understand are infused in all man, unlike circumcision.

The way I see it either Luther missed the boat by interpreting the “Law” to mean something else, or I misunderstood.

This is what I was really concerned with about Luther choosing Galtatians as his most famous commentary, the main issue discussed in it (Christians wrongly adhering to the Law), is not really a point of debate which I see when I hear “faith vs. works”. When I read Luther commentary, I get the impression that he is confusing “works” with “works of the Law” which are not the same. Galatians is about “works of the Law”.

If Luther was talking about some other law, then I really did misunderstand what he was saying, I guess that was a bad idea to use Galatians as a defining work of what Catholic teach vs Protestant teach. Im not sure why he chose Galatians if he didnt intend the Law of Moses, beacuse thats just confusing to other readers.

This is a key point which I cant really respond to the latest stuff unless I know what he was talking about. Which is it?

 

[angelmessenger]

**Hi,

“That’s almost unbelievably naive. Are you seriously saying that if I have some quotes from the Catechism you will believe any assertion I make about Catholicism?”

If you quote from the catechism–I would believe it! It’s not me who is naive. You know these are his words–yet you choose to disbelieve them, as you have everything else the man said which has proven he wasn’t very Christian at all.

—“I’m not asking you to disbelieve what is stated in the quotes.”

You’d be silly if you did!

—“Walker claims that Luther went beyond other figures of his day. He has provided no evidence for this. Why do you believe it?”

You’re clutching at straws here—it wouldn’t matter if anyone else shared his views,-or worse if that’s possible,— they would deserve to be shown up for what they are too!

—"Furthermore, the most damning quote he gave in his essay-- that Luther said that Christians were at fault for not killing Jews–was not in the list of quotes at the end. Don’t you find this suspicious? "

Despite knowing about luthers disgusting views, concerning the Jews, you’re still trying to support him. His own words condemn him for his intense dislike and prejudice against Jewish people

—“I repeat, why do you believe this guy? Any propagandist can get a few quotes together to make his claims seem believable. Your blatant prejudice and disregard for the truth is showing.”

I repeat it’s Luthers own words----read them and see what conclusion you come to.

God bless

jan**

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

fix:

If we only celebrate what we have in common, and go no further, we are not evangelizing.

Catholics hardly ever emphasise - let alone celebrate - what is held in common. Except in parts of the Church.​

They’re far more likely to go and and on (and on, and on, and…but you get the point) about how dreadful anyone is, who is not a card-carrying paid up-member of the CC.

Over-emphasis on what is binds us to other Christians is the very last thing of which we can be accused.

And meanwhile, the world starves - because Christians are too busy ripping each other to shreds, over differences which often turn out to be far less than they appear to be.

How is Christ preached when Christians spend their time savaging the memories of men now no longer alive ? Even if Luther, or Michael Cerularius, or Alexander VI, or [insert name of villain] were ten thousand times as putrid as he is said to be - how does raking up that person’s putridness, real or imagined, help evangelisation ? All it does - AFAICS anyway - is show that Christians have a long memory for injuries, and have been badly traumatised.

One way of making sense of that is to say that Christ’s power is most evident when it shown in the lives of the weak, wretched, disadvantaged and wounded; and this is true so far as it goes; but the grace of Christ among the traumatised, etc., is evident only if it is evident - if we are turned in on ourselves, constantly picking at the scabs of old wounds, so that they remain running sores in the body of Christ - how are we showing forth this power and healing which we profess to have found ?

The wounds of Christ on the Cross didn’t remain open and running and itching and stinking and suppurating - they remained, but they were glorified, so that they are marks of honour and glory, fountains of nothing but good to the Church and the world in which the Church lives. Indeed, the Church is born from the side of the Crucified, as the Fathers were well aware.

But all we seem to do, is pick at the wounds of the Church’s past, and not let them heal. Which makes no sense and leads to no reconciliation, but is a temptation to go on as we have begun, picking at these scabs. We have to deny ourselves the grisly pleasure of doing so - otherwise we will never get out of this vicious circle. And we certainly won’t be very credible in our evangelisation.

 

[J.Boller]

Hi,

You’re clutching at straws here—it wouldn’t matter if anyone else shared his views,-or worse if that’s possible,— they would deserve to be shown up for what they are too!

But if they represented a majority, or a large and influential minority, among the elite, then we are condemning a whole lot of people.
And as far as this debate is concerned, if Luther was no worse than the intellectual movers and shakers of his time (which obviously included the Catholic church), then it is hard to say that he had less right to do it without “clutching at straws”.

Hi,

Despite knowing about luthers disgusting views, concerning the Jews, you’re still trying to support him. His own words condemn him for his intense dislike and prejudice against Jewish people

I’m very glad to see Contarii defending my religion, more so because I am quite certain he would not approve of most of my religious thinking (which is rather liberal). I find it quite sad that in doing so he is practically being called an anti-Semite.
Nobody here said Luther was right. Nobody here defended his views. But that is not very useful for an attack on his theology.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

## Catholics hardly ever emphasise - let alone celebrate - what is held in common. Except in parts of the Church.

They’re far more likely to go and and on (and on, and on, and…but you get the point) about how dreadful anyone is, who is not a card-carrying paid up-member of the CC.

Over-emphasis on what is binds us to other Christians is the very last thing of which we can be accused.

And meanwhile, the world starves - because Christians are too busy ripping each other to shreds, over differences which often turn out to be far less than they appear to be.

How is Christ preached when Christians spend their time savaging the memories of men now no longer alive ? Even if Luther, or Michael Cerularius, or Alexander VI, or [insert name of villain] were ten thousand times as putrid as he is said to be - how does raking up that person’s putridness, real or imagined, help evangelisation ? All it does - AFAICS anyway - is show that Christians have a long memory for injuries, and have been badly traumatised.

One way of making sense of that is to say that Christ’s power is most evident when it shown in the lives of the weak, wretched, disadvantaged and wounded; and this is true so far as it goes; but the grace of Christ among the traumatised, etc., is evident only if it is evident - if we are turned in on ourselves, constantly picking at the scabs of old wounds, so that they remain running sores in the body of Christ - how are we showing forth this power and healing which we profess to have found ?

The wounds of Christ on the Cross didn’t remain open and running and itching and stinking and suppurating - they remained, but they were glorified, so that they are marks of honour and glory, fountains of nothing but good to the Church and the world in which the Church lives. Indeed, the Church is born from the side of the Crucified, as the Fathers were well aware.

But all we seem to do, is pick at the wounds of the Church’s past, and not let them heal. Which makes no sense and leads to no reconciliation, but is a temptation to go on as we have begun, picking at these scabs. We have to deny ourselves the grisly pleasure of doing so - otherwise we will never get out of this vicious circle. And we certainly won’t be very credible in our evangelisation.

Wow, you must have been mad about what he said, you forgot to add a “##” at the end of this post.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Catholic Dude:

Contarini,

One quick question/comment. The place where I am getting this talk on “the Law” is from Luther’s commentary on the Galatians. Maybe I dont know, but I have read Galatians a few times and Paul is specifically mad at the Galatians for wanting or even getting circumcised and wanting/following the Law.

I agree Catholic Dude,

I believe that the how and why Luther perverted the Gospel of Jesus can be found in his miss reading of St. Paul’s discussion on the Phariess created laws and the law of circumcision.

Luther blasted right past St. Peters warnings about the ease of St. Paul’s writings to be distorted by the ignorant and based the foundation of the Protestant Church on his misunderstanding of St. Paul’s writings on the law of circumcision.

St. Paul says,

Galatians 2:16…who know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. Jesus says,

NAB MAT 19:16

“Teacher, what good must I do to possess everlasting life?” He answered, “Why do you question me about what is good? There is One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." “Which ones?” he asked. Jesus replied “You shall not kill”; ‘You shall not commit adultery’; ‘You shall not steal’; ‘You shall not bear false witness’; ‘Honor your father and mother’; and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

NAB ROM 2:6 (St. Paul is speaking)****. . . when he will repay every man for what he has done: eternal life to those who strive for glory, honor, and immortality by patiently doing right; wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. Yes, affliction and anguish will come upon every man who has done evil,

St. Paul’s writings were debating the law of circumcision and the Pharisee created Church laws and not God’s Law of the commandments.

NAB ACT 15:1 Some men came down to Antioch from Judea and began to teach the brothers, **“Unless you are circumcised according to Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.” This created dissension and much controversy between them and Paul and Barnabas.**NAB ACT 21:20

“You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have come to believe, all of them staunch defenders of the law. Yet they have been informed that you teach the Jews who live among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, to give up the circumcision of their children, and to renounce their customs.”

**NAB PHI 3:5 **(St. Paul) I was circumcised on the eighth day, being of the stock of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrew origins; in legal observance I was a Pharisee, and so zealous that I persecuted the church. I was above reproach when it came to justice based on the law. (GAL 6:13)**NAB 1CO 7:19 **(St. Paul) Circumcision counts for nothing, and its lack makes no difference either. **What matters is keeping God’s commandments.****NAB ROM 2:13 **(St. Paul) For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; it is those who keep it who will be declared just.
**NAB 2PE 3:14 Preparation for the Coming.**Consider that our Lord’s patience is directed toward salvation. Paul, our beloved brother, wrote you this in the spirit of wisdom that is his, dealing with these matters as he does in all his letters. There are certain passages in them hard to understand. The ignorant and the unstable distort them (just as they do the rest of Scripture) to their own ruin. You are forewarned, beloved brothers. Be on your guard lest you be led astray by the error of the wicked, and forfeit the security you enjoy.

 

[Sherlock]

## Catholics hardly ever emphasise - let alone celebrate - what is held in common. Except in parts of the Church.

They’re far more likely to go and and on (and on, and on, and…but you get the point) about how dreadful anyone is, who is not a card-carrying paid up-member of the CC.

Over-emphasis on what is binds us to other Christians is the very last thing of which we can be accused.

Although your point is well taken, I have to wonder if you’ve been hanging out on the Apologetics forum too long! If one hangs out here for any length of time, one will get a distorted picture of how the average Catholic relates to non-Catholics—nor is this surprising, given the nature of apologetics.

But in real-life, I know many, many good, solid, orthodox Catholics who strive to find common ground with our separated brethren (after all, we are fighting the same culture of death). I know far more Catholics of this kind than those who go on, as you say, about how “dreadful anyone is who is not a card-carrying paid up-member of the CC”. Look, this is an apologetics forum. You are naturally going to be discussing differences here, not singing Kumbaya. That doesn’t mean that the Catholics here are argumentative when dealing with non-Catholics in other situations.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Steven Merten:

Hello St. Curious,

I am sure that Luther was opposing Catholic priests and monks who were out preaching Christ’s words. In so doing Luther condemned Christ’s teachings themselves.

Who did the dividing, Luther or we Catholics?

Not just Luther:​

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp950712.htm

1. From the painful confrontation of this historical situation with the Gospel law of unity, the ecumenical movement arose, a movement which aims at restoring even visible unity among all Christians, “that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God” (Unitatis redintegratio, n. 1). The Second Vatican Council gave the greatest importance to this movement, pointing out how it implies, for those who work for it, a communion of faith in the Trinity and in Christ, and a common longing for the one and universal Church (cf. Ibid., n. 1). But authentic ecumenical commitment likewise requires of all Christians, motivated by a sincere desire for communion, freedom from prejudices which hinder the development of the dialogue of charity in truth.

The Council formulates a differentiated judgment on the historical evolution of the separations. “Large communities” it says, "became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church—for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame (Unitatis redintegratio, n. 3). This was the initial moment of separation. Subsequently, the situation changed: “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers” (ibid.).

With the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself definitively to follow the path of ecumenical research, setting herself to listen to the Spirit of the Lord. The way of ecumenism has become the way of the Church. ##

Do you say that Luther never ever slammed Catholics? If he did do you reprimand your leader for his conduct as much, hopefully more, than you reprimand we Catholics at a Catholic website?

Believe it or not there still are Catholics who leave the Church for Luther’s garbage. We Catholics have an obligation to protect Catholics by showing them the true words of Jesus over Luthers perversions.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Sherlock:

Although your point is well taken, I have to wonder if you’ve been hanging out on the Apologetics forum too long!

Um…er…quite possibly ​

If one hangs out here for any length of time, one will get a distorted picture of how the average Catholic relates to non-Catholics—nor is this surprising, given the nature of apologetics.

But in real-life, I know many, many good, solid, orthodox Catholics who strive to find common ground with our separated brethren (after all, we are fighting the same culture of death). I know far more Catholics of this kind than those who go on, as you say, about how “dreadful anyone is who is not a card-carrying paid up-member of the CC”. Look, this is an apologetics forum. You are naturally going to be discussing differences here, not singing Kumbaya. That doesn’t mean that the Catholics here are argumentative when dealing with non-Catholics in other situations.

“Point taken” - thanks​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Catholic Dude:

Wow, you must have been mad about what he said, you forgot to add a “##” at the end of this post.

LOL - there are others with none at all​