Luther said he wanted to burn "all the Franciscan monks"!

[JonNC]

Elsewhere on this forum I was likened to Jack Chick for having simply reported the following historical fact:

I find it very unfortunate that some people apparently believe that the simple facts of history ought to be suppressed at all costs!

The OP is referring to me, and my statement here:

Maybe we’ll talk again when you move on to the 21st century, and take on the spirit of ecumenism championed by your Church. For now, I have no time for your Jack Chick/Father O’Hare style of apologetics.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=350119
The thread is a mere 15 posts long, and should one read it one will discover that I have made no attempt, and expressed no desire to suppress any information, as if I had the power to do so. It should also be clear that I likened the OP’s apologetic style to that of Chick and O’Hare, not him personally.

The OP has every right to post any and all information he wants, and in any manner he wants, subject to the rules of the forum. By that same right, however, I and others may and will challenge him when we believe that he has misrepresented the events, the context of the events, or the intentions of spoken words.

What concerns me the most, though, is that the nature of the threads created by the OP have the effect of causing division and hostility among us today (one needs only to read the posts on this and the previous referenced threads as evidence). The OP claims that that is not his intent, but this is the result time and again, for him and all to see. And his using terms like “ignoramuses” (not exactly simply reporting the facts) to describe historic figures does not add to comity between us.
The history of the Reformation era is not pretty. There was hateful talk and hideous actions on both sides, that none of us are proud of, and do not reflect Christ. How we use that history today will tell us how well we reflect Christ.

Finally, there are a good numnber of Catholics here for whom I have great respect, love and admiration. Many of you know who you are by my posts and PM’s. It is always my intention to walk the walk as well as talk the talk of charity and ecumenism. If in this thread or the previous, I haven’t walked that walk, please PM me, so that I may do better.

Jon

 

[Hesychios]

Sounds like something an Augustinian would say.

So true!

For a while back in history perhaps the Dominicans as well!

Of course, Franciscans are not monks…

This is also generally true, I don’t know if the cloistered Franciscans should be regarded as monks.

Perhaps the Capuchins?

 

[raumzeitmc2]

It should also be clear that I likened the OP’s apologetic style to that of Chick and O’Hare, not him personally.

All I’m doing is quoting the reformers (with good documentation, btw) and offering my opinion.

I and others may and will challenge him when we believe that he has misrepresented the events, the context of the events, or the intentions of spoken words.

Fair enough. I certainly don’t object to that.

What concerns me the most, though, is that the nature of the threads created by the OP have the effect of causing division and hostility among us today (one needs only to read the posts on this and the previous referenced threads as evidence). The OP claims that that is not his intent, but this is the result time and again, for him and all to see. And his using terms like “ignoramuses” (not exactly simply reporting the facts) to describe historic figures does not add to comity between us.

Well, what term would you apply to those who claimed the gospel had been “lost” for centuries, but that they themselves had “discovered” it again??

The history of the Reformation era is not pretty. There was hateful talk and hideous actions on both sides, that none of us are proud of, and do not reflect Christ. How we use that history today will tell us how well we reflect Christ.

But how can we use that history if we are not even allowed to mention what it was?

It is always my intention to walk the walk as well as talk the talk of charity and ecumenism.

What is charitable about saying that all the approved Doctors of the Church, as well as all the saints and martyrs, were themselves a pack of ignoramuses, and the truth of the gospel was unknown until Luther and Calvin appeared on the scene? Or what is charitable about implying that Christ himself allowed his Church to wallow in ignorance and superstition for centuries??? Why, it’s an unspeakable and blasphemous insult to both Christ and to his saints! And this is what you defend?

 

[kalt]

That Luther was a bigot is as well-known as it is irrelevant. When modern-day Protestants are taking his words as a directive to bring siege engines to Assisi, this will be a problem.

It is relevant, because Luther formed a new church with new doctrine, while Catholics adhere to the doctrine of the church which was founded by Christ. That Luther, the founder and promoter of new doctrine, was immoral and mentally ill is most relevant.

To the one who asked about worrying about Catholic scoudrels instead I ask, why mix the two, which are not identical?

Luther, promoting heresy, broke away from the church that Christ founded. Many Christians follow these heresies today.

That Catholics aren’t perfect is not the question. The immoral behavior of Catholics is a question for another, unrelated topic. We could discuss the immoral behavior of leaders of the Catholic and Lutheran churches in the same post, since that is the same topic–immoral behavior of religious leaders.

If you want to discuss the immoral behavior of Luther and compare it to someone else, you will have to choose Jesus, Smith, Calvin, or someone else who founded a new church.

 

[Eleve]

It is relevant, because Luther formed a new church with new doctrine, while Catholics adhere to the doctrine of the church which was founded by Christ. That Luther, the founder and promoter of new doctrine, was immoral and mentally ill is most relevant.

Only if the quality of the person overrules the quality of the ideas. 800 million Protestants seem to think he was on to something.

 

[kalt]

Only if the quality of the person overrules the quality of the ideas. 800 million Protestants seem to think he was on to something.

And how many millions think that Muhammed was on to something?

Do you believe that a fallible person can create a infallible religion?

 

[Eleve]

And how many millions think that Muhammed was on to something?

More than one thousand. My disagreement with them, however, does not stem from my opinion of Muhammad as a person.

Do you believe that a fallible person can create a infallible religion?

No, I don’t. I also don’t know of any Lutherans who think that Lutheranism is infallible.

 

[Bill_Pick]

More than one thousand. My disagreement with them, however, does not stem from my opinion of Muhammad as a person.



No, I don’t. I also don’t know of any Lutherans who think that Lutheranism is infallible.

With the power of Jesus,Yes,Yes and Yes

 

[O.S.Luke]

What possible redeeming value can this thread possibly have?

 

[Eleve]

With the power of Jesus,Yes,Yes and Yes

What are you saying “yes” to?

 

[Hesychios]

It is relevant, because Luther formed a new church with new doctrine, while Catholics adhere to the doctrine of the church which was founded by Christ.

I would say that the Catholics of a papal persuasion adhere to the doctrine of the church which was founded by Christ plus a bit of unnecessary and erroneous extra.

 

[Hesychios]

What possible redeeming value can this thread possibly have?

It’s just more baiting…

typical.

 

[kalt]

More than one thousand. My disagreement with them, however, does not stem from my opinion of Muhammad as a person.



No, I don’t. I also don’t know of any Lutherans who think that Lutheranism is infallible.

And so some parts of Lutheranism are wrong. If even some of the doctrines are false, why be a Lutheran?

But all those millions of Moslems think he was on to something. You mentioned a large number of people following Luther as if that were some kind of proof that he “had something there”. So what about Islam? Doesn’t the large number of adherents say the same thing? That M was on to something?

 

[kalt]

I would say that the Catholics of a papal persuasion adhere to the doctrine of the church which was founded by Christ plus a bit of unnecessary and erroneous extra.

Like Tradition?

 

[Eleve]

And so some parts of Lutheranism are wrong. If even some of the doctrines are false, why be a Lutheran?

First of all, infallibility is protection from the possibility of error. To be fallible is not to be wrong. But even if the Lutheran communion is wrong on a particular doctrine, I don’t think (but I also don’t know) that it excludes those who disagree from communion. So, people who still mostly agree with the leadership have no reason to leave.

But all those millions of Moslems think he was on to something. You mentioned a large number of people following Luther as if that were some kind of proof that he “had something there”. So what about Islam? Doesn’t the large number of adherents say the same thing? That M was on to something?

No. I mentioned the large number of Protestants as a counterexample to the argumentum ad hominem against Luther. No matter how flawed Luther was as a person, there are plenty of upstanding citizens who agree with him.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

No matter how flawed Luther was as a person, there are plenty of upstanding citizens who agree with him.

And a good many not so upstanding, it should be noted!

Luther’s following of apostate monks and priest resemble, to a hair, those godless wretches at the end of the fifteenth century, of whom the Erfurt Benedictine, Nicholas Von Siegen, writes that they said:

“Now we will sin away boldly and freshly; it is easy getting absolved.”

There were called to account and were represented as blasphemers. The others, on the contrary, received from the father of the “Evangelical Reformation” the wholly unevangelical encouragement: “Be a sinner and sin stoutly, but more stoutly trust in Christ, the conqueror of sin.” 1125

In the face of such subjects and of such cheering exhortations, what sort of organization could arise, especially when they further heard that the moral law, as such, did no concern Christians, 1126 that every man by nature, even in Christianity, is at heart at least, an adulterer? 1127 Add to this that these subjects, Luther included, lived their lives without prayer, without fasting, without chastisement, “which holiness in its entirety even a dog and a sow can put into daily practice.” 1128

What sort of organization Luther got together out of his following of apostate priest and religious is manifest. To divert public attention from it, the “Reformer” directed the popular gaze upon the trespasses of the secular and regular clergy, and especially upon their “unclean celibacy,” as it was called. Among his own he made a success of this, but at the same time he, beyond any other, verified the truth of his own dictum: “Thus it goes in the whole world that everywhere the beam passes judgment on a splinter, and the big rouge condemns a little one.” 1129

In books, in expositions of Holy Writ, 1130 in pamphlets, but not less in sermons, there were ever freshly renewed attacks set up on the moral decline of the secular and regular clergy. Shrewdly enough, as a rule, it was not immorality alone that was touched upon, but, in conjunction with it, other more or less true wrong-doings and abuses were alleged. Of the correctness of these charges the people were more speedily convinced and as a consequence, they were more easily led to give credence to what was preached on the bad, evil life of papistical celibates. In respect to the bishops and priest, whose conduct only too often was condemned by their state, the preachers naturally had more and speedier luck.

The common citizen, for instance, was only too willing to hear that the clergy sought only his money, not his soul; he had too often had dealings with them. Luther knew this very well, and wrote as early as 1522, that one could foresee how “there would be riot reached, and priests, monks and bishops, together with the whole ecclesiastical state, might be slain and expelled, unless they applied themselves to a sincere, noteworthy betterment….

“For the commoner, in the movement and vexation of the injury suffered in his goods, body, and soul, too strongly tempted and burdened by them beyond measure and with the utmost perfidy, cannot and will not tolerate such things further; he has righteous reasons to let loose upon them with flails and clubs, as Karsthans threatens.” 1131 The complaints of the priests in Eberlin von Günsburg are wholly in accord with Luther’s words: “A Priest absolutely dares not show his tonsure any longer, for the commoner is quite heated against the priesthood. In their case a mountain is made of a mold-hill, and the anger of God breaks over them. And all that do the priest an injury get to thinking they are thereby doing God as service.” It is a wonder, it was said, the people do not stone them to death. “Before forty years pass, the very dogs will void their urine on us priests.” 1132

1. “Chronicon ecclesiasticum,” ed. Wegele (1855), p. 479.
2. Enders III, 200: “Esto peccator et pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in Christo, qui victor est peccati, mortis, et mundi.”
3. See the next section.
4. See above, p. 127.
5. Erl. 43, 273, for the years 1520-1532.
6. U. Zasius had already said: “I must first say that Luther with brazen shamelessness interprets the whole Scripture of the Old and New Testament, for the first book of the Bible to the end, against popes and priests, as if God, from the beginning of the world, had had no other business than to thunder against the priesthood. With what happy ravishment Luther forces all of this out of the Scriptures, only he does not perceive who will not see.” J. A. Riegger. “U. Zasii epp.,” p. 198
7. Weim. VIII, 676.
8. “Syben frumm aber troslose Pfaffen Klagen ihre not,” (1521) in J. Eberlin v. Günzburg’s “Sämtliche Schriften,” Enders, II, 73, 75. The consequences wrought by vilification from the pulpit were shown in the case the apostate monk Jost Höflich in Ulm, to which place he came about the year 1523. There being no pulpit open to him in the city, he preached his Friday sermons in a place outside. They always produced the result that the burghers clamorously reviled the priests, and demanded other preachers than those who were in the city churches, and were no lambs either. Thus willingly was reviling of the clergy heard. Cf. Weyermann, “Nachrichten von Gelehrten, Künstlern und andern merkwürdigen Personen aus Ulm,” 1878, p. 324.

Luther and Lutherdom, Heinrich Denifle, pp. 366-368.

img359.imageshack.us/img359/2061/deniflepp366367.jpg
img3.imageshack.us/img3/9788/deniflepp368369.jpg

 

[kalt]

First of all, infallibility is protection from the possibility of error. To be fallible is not to be wrong. But even if the Lutheran communion is wrong on a particular doctrine, I don’t think (but I also don’t know) that it excludes those who disagree from communion. So, people who still mostly agree with the leadership have no reason to leave.

No. I mentioned the large number of Protestants as a counterexample to the argumentum ad hominem against Luther. No matter how flawed Luther was as a person, there are plenty of upstanding citizens who agree with him.

And what of his flawed doctrine, then? In the first paragraph you admit that some of the doctrine could be in “error”, so it really isn’t about the man in the end, is it, except for the fact that all men are fallible? And so the number of adherents to the flawed doctrine is irrelevant. Of course you go on to say that they are free to accept or reject any of the doctrine, anyway, so the errors don’t really matter.

A Fallible man created a fallible set of doctrines. So why follow?

And the number question. Hitler had oodles of followers. Slavery was supported by plenty of upstanding citizens. Burning witches was overseen by the pillars of the community. Selling indulgences was conducted by authority figures in the Catholic Church!

The fact that an error is conducted or supported by upstanding members of a community is no guarantee that the practice (or opinion) is correct. And, certainly, the number of people who agree with these practices or opinions is not proof that they are correct or that the person promoting these ideas or practices is “on to something”.

Position and great numbers do not prove that someone is “on to something”, and they certainly don’t confer infallibility.

 

[Eleve]

uch:

Of course they don’t! Which, inversely, is why you cannot attack Lutheran doctrines by attacking Luther!

 

[kalt]

uch:

Of course they don’t! Which, inversely, is why you cannot attack Lutheran doctrines by attacking Luther!

Actually, what I said was that he formed a church and the fact that he is a fallible human being (immoral and insane) is relevant. I also said that to compare him to Catholic priests and bishops (including the pope) is invalid. As the founder of a church, he should be compared to Jesus.

If you want to compare him to other human being who formed their own churches, pick Calvin or Muhammed, or Mel Gibson even.

You said yourself that the doctrines of the Luthern church are not 100% correct. How can that be? How can a church teach false doctrine? A church founded and protected from error by God can’t. A church founded by a fallibile (immoral and insane) man will inevitabley teach error.

So, yes, Luther’s person, precisely because he, as the leader of his church, is not protected from error, is relevant. Not only isn’t he, as leader of his church, not protected from error, there is ample proof that he wasn’t even a decent human being!

We don’t follow the pope because he’s a DSG–Quite a few popes have been as bad or worse than Luther.

So, while the character of any particular pope is irrelevant to the doctrine, Luther’s character is all important. Without the protection of infallibility, Luther is just a guy, and his character should be taken into account.

And, of course, as you said in an earlier post, some of his doctrines are wrong. Wasn’t it inevitable without the protection of infalibility? That an immoral and insane man should teach error shouldn’t be a surprise.

 

[Eleve]

Lutherans (obviously) don’t believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church, though, so for them it’s just one fallible doctrine against another.