Luther

[yankee_doodle]

In faith morals and doctrine - administration, dealing with crisis’ and politics are another matter.

but how can something as profound as a split within the church not concern faith & morals at some level?

 

[JRKH]

but how can something as profound as a split within the church not concern faith & morals at some level?

You have raised a good point and I wish to give it some thought.


Perhaps others, more familiar with ML and the Reformation can provide some insight.

As for myself, I can only think that, The Church can only teach correctly. That is Doctrine, and that is what Martin Luther accepted when he became a priest of the Catholic Church. He also swore obedience to his superiors in the Church.
Martin Luther, in his zeal to reform the Church, let pride overcome his better Judgement and his vow of obedience.
Likewise some in the Church, also allowed personal Pride, or anger, or whatever get in the way of meaningful dialog.
This resulted in a hardening of positions, the excommunication of ML for heresy, and the subsequent POLITICAL fallout which contributed so much to the entrenchment of Protestantism in Europe.
I know this is not the best answer, but It’s late…

Peace
James

 

[leopolis1]

Luther was an adulterer - a monk who “married” a nun. So please don’t call him a deout Catholic. What he preached was ridiculous: faith only (“faith without deeds is dead” says the Scripture), free interpretation of the Scripture - do whatever you want, you are your own lords, and that’s what lutherans and other protestants do - bless gay couples, allow abortion, etc; Scripture only (nowhere in the Scripture!!!), etc. Lutheran medicine was much worse than Catholic disease. Protestants have just bread and wine instead of Body and Blood of Jesus, no sacrament of reconcilliation to purify their dirty souls…
Jesus wants lutherans and other protestant heretics to come back to the Catholic Church - to His Church - Day 5:
medjugorjeusa.org/dmnovena.htm

 

[Reuben_J]

I have enormous sympathy with Luther.

I think he and I are similar personality wise.

When he was excommunicated he said he retracted what he said about SOME of Huss’ propositions being truely christian. He said ALL of them are truely christian and in condemning them the Pope condemns the Gospel !!!

That’s exactly what I’d do !!! I have that kind of personality. Trap me in a corner and threaten me, and I’ll bring the walls down, even if it be on top of myself also, but youre coming with me !!!

We therefore have to be careful in how we treat you lest we’ll be at the receiving end of your wrath too.

So Im wondering, did the catholic church handle Luther all wrong. Did the catholic church create the protestant reformation by the way she handled Luther.

If the catholic chuch had not tried to humiliate Luther, could it all have been avoided.

Was Luther an instrument of God?

Luther was not an instrument of God but rather the instrument of the enemy of God who wants to split us. Luther split the Church.

Whether the Church treated him wrong or not, he should not have left. Just like you since you said you’re like him, it’s pride (lack of humility) and humaness.

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

Luther was an adulterer - a monk who “married” a nun. So please don’t call him a devout Catholic.

Yes, that will immediately disqualify him as devout Catholic. We can understand the sin - lust or adultery, anyone can commit that. But for him to marry a nun made him very unCatholic. He might begin as a good Catholic but his ego, pride, rebelliousness and sin got the better of him. Poor thing. The Church did not help much either. They (Church) could have counseled him but I guess he already burned the bridge where he could never turn back.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

They (Church) could have counseled him but I guess he already burned the bridge where he could never turn back.

Yep, you could say that!

From the Catholic Encyclopedia: Luther.

The Bull [“Exsurge Domine”]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exsurge_Domine) seemingly affected him [Luther] little. It only drove him to further extremes and gave a new momentum to the revolutionary agitation. As far back as July 10, when the Bull was only under discussion, he scornfully defied it:

“As for me, the die is cast: *I despise alike the favor and fury of Rome * contemtus est Romanus furor et favor]; I do not wish to be reconciled with her, or ever to hold any communion with her. Let her condemn and burn my books; I, in turn, unless I can find no fire, will condemn and publicly burn the whole pontifical law, that swamp of heresies.”

To George Spalatin, July 10, 1520.

(De Wette, op. cit., I, 466).

English text.

books.google.com/books?num=10&lr=&q=luther%20%22%20I%20despise%20alike%20the%22&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

---

“Householders are the kind who promote their greedy impulses, dissipate their energies on the pleasures of this world, become swollen with pride and overbearing toward humble folk, and insult holy people who recognize the narrow way that leads to life.”

St. Augustine, Exposition of Psalm 120:3:2. Works, III/19, ISBN 1565481976, p. 511.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Luther was an adulterer - a monk who “married” a nun.

awesome (he must have had great game).

So please don’t call him a deout Catholic.

please don’t (I agree) … that would ruin my image of him.

What he preached was ridiculous: faith only (“faith without deeds is dead” says the Scripture),

OK here I agree (but no more ridiculous than what any other religion preaches)

free interpretation of the Scripture

how dare people learn to read … slice them with the holy Roman scepter and burn what’s left of them alive

do whatever you want, you are your own lords, and that’s what lutherans and other protestants do - bless gay couples, allow abortion, etc; Scripture only (nowhere in the Scripture!!!), etc. Lutheran medicine was much worse than Catholic disease. Protestants have just bread and wine instead of Body and Blood of Jesus, no sacrament of reconcilliation to purify their dirty souls…
Jesus wants lutherans and other protestant heretics to come back to the Catholic Church - to His Church - Day 5:
medjugorjeusa.org/dmnovena.htm

do we have some anger management issues?

 

[yankee_doodle]

You have raised a good point and I wish to give it some thought.


Perhaps others, more familiar with ML and the Reformation can provide some insight.

As for myself, I can only think that, The Church can only teach correctly. That is Doctrine, and that is what Martin Luther accepted when he became a priest of the Catholic Church. He also swore obedience to his superiors in the Church.

well perhaps, but let’s say a solider in war, who swore an oath to obey his superiors, witnesses his superiors raiding villages and stealing money from the poor. Does he have a moral obligation to report it? If the Army does nothing (which is really an endorsement of that behavior, even if by omission) then who would blame that solider for leaving the Army and not reenlisting (or even seeking early exit and justice through other avenues).

I’m not sure if that’s a great analogy, but it’s sufficient I think.

Martin Luther, in his zeal to reform the Church, let pride overcome his better Judgement and his vow of obedience.

The way I understand it he wrote several letters protesting the actions of Johann Tetzel, when they were ignored (I believe he was even punished or scolded for his protests at one point) he nailed up his 95 Thesis. That document was taken, published (with the newly invented printing press) and off it went. Whether or not Luther could have even stopped the reformation at that point is probably debatable.

IMO (as someone with no real stake in this debate) I think the CC brought it on itself.

Likewise some in the Church, also allowed personal Pride, or anger, or whatever get in the way of meaningful dialog.
This resulted in a hardening of positions, the excommunication of ML for heresy, and the subsequent POLITICAL fallout which contributed so much to the entrenchment of Protestantism in Europe.
I know this is not the best answer, but It’s late…

Peace
James

well yes, it’s game theory, the actions of one side harden the other, and vice versa, until both sides are irreversibly hardened (obviously game theory could also formulate a different course, or maybe a reversal).

From my perspective though it’s hard to lend much credibility to the CC because it continues to define itself as infallible when they’ve made so many obviously blunders throughout history (and IMO they continually redefine infallibility or muddy the concept in ambiguity … to the point where any reasonable level of credibility is lost).

I guess most Catholics remain loyal to it because of ethnic bonds, they were raised Catholic, or they’ve never detached themselves from their religious faith (and did a reasoned analysis of this history). I know there was a lot of tension between Catholics and Protestants both historically and in this country up until just a few decades ago … and that sort of tension tends to harden people in their respective camps. After all it’s more than just intellectual assent with the doctrines of your religion, it’s probably more like betraying your side in battle.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Yep, you could say that!

From the Catholic Encyclopedia: Luther.

books.google.com/books?num=10&lr=&q=luther%20%22%20I%20despise%20alike%20the%22&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

---

“Householders are the kind who promote their greedy impulses, dissipate their energies on the pleasures of this world, become swollen with pride and overbearing toward humble folk, and insult holy people who recognize the narrow way that leads to life.”

St. Augustine, Exposition of Psalm 120:3:2. Works, III/19, ISBN 1565481976, p. 511.

was Luther a “householder”? You know it’s striking. I followed your link to the piece by newadvent.org and I couldn’t help but notice the attention this man gets from your church (and how hard your church tries to tarnish this man after what … five centuries, like a school child with a grudge that just won’t go away)?

They start out by analyzing every aspect of his life, including his “stern father” (opining that’s where Luther must have gotten his anger from … trying to rip his credibility right from the outset). I wonder if this sort of analysis has been done on any of your corrupt popes throughout the ages?

It seems to me the CC has an army of scholars it retains to cover up it’s blunders (and crimes). I think they even try to spin Johann Tetzel as not such a bad guy after all. I could mention all the other spin jobs, like the reformulation of Galileo, the elusive definition of infallibility … but I know it would be a monumental waste of time. It makes me wonder how the CC will spin its sex abuse scandal a century from now? It will probably be written as a great persecution of the church (that is if there’s anyone left who cares).

I guess I’m a householder to, because I think this is all too absurd for words. However, IMO (even though I’m not a believer) Martin Luther did a heroic thing (imperfections in character notwithstanding). I suspect if you made all these events variables in a game theory model you could show but for Martin Luther the enlightenment would have never happened, the industrial revolution would have never happened, and America would have never happened. One domino who refused to remain enslaved to tyranny!

 

[guanophore]

I’m part way through a book on the Reformation.

May you be richly blessed in your research, and your quest.

So Im wondering, did the catholic church handle Luther all wrong. Did the catholic church create the protestant reformation by the way she handled Luther.

If the catholic chuch had not tried to humiliate Luther, could it all have been avoided.

Was Luther an instrument of God?

I think that men are always in need of Reform, and that Luther, along with many others in his day and age, observed that the Catholic clergy in their region needed Reform. He did not seem to understand that the doctrine and the Scripture were not what needed reform, though. I don’t think he intended to separate from the Apostolic Faith.

However, I do not think that the fracturing of the Church would have been prevented even if Luther were not in the picture. You are correct, that schism was fomenting for a long time. Luther just happened to be the pebble that caused the landslide. Had he not, another would have. The political and economic conditions were a major factor.

It is interesting to note that the 22 Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church were not involved in the fracturing caused by the Reformation (or maybe more properly called the "deformation). This is primarily because there was no conflagration of secular authority and spiritual as there was in the Roman West. It was the assumption of secular offices by Latin clergy that blurred the boundaries between spiritual and secular. When Rome fell, and the Emperor moved to Constantinople, the secular affairs were left in the charge of the Bishop of Rome. This move (entrusting secular rulership to the Bishop) set the stage for “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. In the centuries that followed, failure to hold to the Teachings of the Apostles made one a traiter to the State. Religious freedom was eliminated, and corruption in Catholic officials (both secular and religious) was rampant. It was into this political and economic climate that Luther’s 95 theses were posted.

In answer to your question, I would say that certain individuals in positions of authority handled things badly. However, they were not practicing the Teachings of the Catholic Church in their actions.

 

[guanophore]

the CC never makes mistakes do they?

No, the CC cannot err. this is because she is protected from error by her divine elements. She has as her Head Christ Himself, inflallible and mighty God. She is ensouled by the HS, the Lord and Giver of Life. She has the promises of God that He will lead her into all Truth, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against her. if she were to teach error, then she would pass thru the gates of hell.

However, persons who are Catholic (or claim to be) make mistakes every day, and are always in need of Reform.

 

[yankee_doodle]

No, the CC cannot err. this is because she is protected from error by her divine elements. She has as her Head Christ Himself, inflallible and mighty God. She is ensouled by the HS, the Lord and Giver of Life. She has the promises of God that He will lead her into all Truth, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against her. if she were to teach error, then she would pass thru the gates of hell.

I have a bridge for sale … oldest span bridge in America (you interested)? It connects two of the most amazing places in our country, downtown Manhattan and Brooklyn Heights (near all the cool neighborhoods in Brooklyn like Williamsburg, Fort Greene, etc.). You could charge tolls and make billions!

 

[guanophore]

well perhaps, but let’s say a solider in war, who swore an oath to obey his superiors, witnesses his superiors raiding villages and stealing money from the poor. Does he have a moral obligation to report it? If the Army does nothing (which is really an endorsement of that behavior, even if by omission) then who would blame that solider for leaving the Army and not reenlisting (or even seeking early exit and justice through other avenues).

I’m not sure if that’s a great analogy, but it’s sufficient I think.

I think it is sufficient for the discussion. He did not just do this for himself personally, though. He fomented a mutiny among all those that had issues against the Latin authority. He also did not do so with dignity (he may have started out that way) but became resentful, spiteful, and full of hatred. If one is going to be a concsientious objector, then one might consider doing so with dignity. The hateful spew that came out of him in many arenas (some cited above) does not fulfill the moral obligation to resist evil with good.

The way I understand it he wrote several letters protesting the actions of Johann Tetzel, when they were ignored   (I believe he was even punished or scolded for his protests at one point)

No, it was not ignored. The Church took it very seriously. However, the wheels of change move slowly in the Church, and it took longer than Luther’s lifetime for the complaints he lodged about Tetzel to be formally addressed. However, when you read the council of Trent documents, it is clear that the changes made in the practice of penances are exactly directed to his complaints.

The present prohibition in the Latin Rite for any clergy to hold secular office is also a lasting effect of these (and other) complaints.

IMO I think the CC brought it on itself.

I would say it differently. I would say that men, acting in pride, arrogance, greed and lasciviousness brought scandal upon the Church. None of these behaviors, however, are part of Catholic doctrine and practice.

From my perspective though it’s hard to lend much credibility to the CC because it continues to define itself as infallible when they’ve made so many obviously blunders throughout history

Such a response is typical when one is suffering from a deficient understanding of the nature of Church. The Church is much more than the fallible human elements attached to her. She is infallible because if the divine elements.

 I guess most Catholics remain loyal to it because of ethnic bonds, they were raised Catholic, or they've never detached themselves from their religious faith (and did a reasoned analysis of this history).

I don’t think you will find that “most Catholics” around CAF are like this. Most of us have studied the history of our faith extensively. Many of us have left the faith, in spite of the ethnic bonds, and sojourned among Protestants for many years (some for decades). We have returned home to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church because we are pursuaded that she is the Church He founded, and we have chosen to accept that He kept the promises He made to her.

After all it’s more than just intellectual assent with the doctrines of your religion, it’s probably more like betraying your side in battle.

fight the good fight. keep the faith

 

[guanophore]

“Householders are the kind who promote their greedy impulses, dissipate their energies on the pleasures of this world, become swollen with pride and overbearing toward humble folk, and insult holy people who recognize the narrow way that leads to life.”

St. Augustine, Exposition of Psalm 120:3:2. Works, III/19, ISBN 1565481976, p. 511.

was Luther a “householder”?

May I suggest reading some of his sentiments about the peasant revolt before you decide?

historyguide.org/earlymod/peasants1525.html

You know it’s striking. I followed your link to the piece by newadvent.org and I couldn’t help but notice the attention this man gets from your church (and how hard your church tries to tarnish this man after what … five centuries, like a school child with a grudge that just won’t go away)?

I don’t think anyone can really add to Luther’s tarnish. He has plenty with no help at all from the Latin Rite.

Suggested reading are some of His sentiments toward God’s Chosen people.

They start out by analyzing every aspect of his life, including his “stern father” (opining that’s where Luther must have gotten his anger from … trying to rip his credibility right from the outset). I wonder if this sort of analysis has been done on any of your corrupt popes throughout the ages?

Indeed, and even more so. If you every explore the process of canonization, you will find a very rigorous analysis in every case, at every step. This is necessary, in spite of the fact that we also know them by their fruit.

It seems to me the CC has an army of scholars it retains to cover up it’s blunders (and crimes). I think they even try to spin Johann Tetzel as not such a bad guy after all. I could mention all the other spin jobs, like the reformulation of Galileo, the elusive definition of infallibility … but I know it would be a monumental waste of time.

Well, no one can decide for you what is a good use of your time. However, it is never a “waste” to study history from various points of view. In every case, you will always find that men are fallible,a nd always in need of Reform, while God is infallible, and His revelation to man should not be adapted to suit our nogrosities.

It makes me wonder how the CC will spin its sex abuse scandal a century from now? It will probably be written as a great persecution of the church (that is if there’s anyone left who cares).

Indeed, it is a great persecution. The devil knows well that, when he strikes at the shepherds, the sheep are scattered. He knows just where to focus the undermining to cause division and wounding.

I guess I’m a householder to, because I think this is all too absurd for words. However, IMO (even though I’m not a believer) Martin Luther did a heroic thing (imperfections in character notwithstanding).

Each of us has a heroic element that longs for truth,a nd to be able to stand immoveable on the convictions of our conscience even unto death. This is also part of the heritage of the United States, where people wanted liberty or death. This is the heroic aspect of man, ingrained in his being by God at creation. It is not in our nature to approve of tyranny.

 

[guanophore]

I have a bridge for sale … oldest span bridge in America (you interested)? It connects two of the most amazing places in our country, downtown Manhattan and Brooklyn Heights (near all the cool neighborhoods in Brooklyn like Williamsburg, Fort Greene, etc.). You could charge tolls and make billions!

I am not sure why you are here - you have stated that you are researching.

The purpose of CAF is to give Catholic Answers to people making inquiries. If you choose to consider them yarns, then that is between you and your Maker. I shall now leave you to your choices. Peace be with you.

 

[JRKH]

well perhaps, but let’s say a solider in war, who swore an oath to obey his superiors, witnesses his superiors raiding villages and stealing money from the poor. Does he have a moral obligation to report it? If the Army does nothing (which is really an endorsement of that behavior, even if by omission) then who would blame that solider for leaving the Army and not reenlisting (or even seeking early exit and justice through other avenues).

I’m not sure if that’s a great analogy, but it’s sufficient I think.

I don’t have time to go into all of the items you raised.
As relates to the Above analogy, I would say there is a very large difference between simply resigning from the Army and Resigning, forming another Army, and declaring the original Army to the an enemy of the State.

Luther didn’t simply “resign” and go away. He promoted the schism and “Formed a new Army”.

Peace
James

 

[yankee_doodle]

I don’t have time to go into all of the items you raised.
As relates to the Above analogy, I would say there is a very large difference between simply resigning from the Army and Resigning, forming another Army, and declaring the original Army to the an enemy of the State.

Luther didn’t simply “resign” and go away. He promoted the schism and “Formed a new Army”.

Peace
James

fair enough, so then an extension of the analogy is in order. Say I’m a soldier in an army, and that army begins to oppress my fellow citizens. The oppression has no rational basis, and as it turns out our corrupt politicians simply want to soak my fellow citizens out of their last dime to build elaborate palaces so they and their families can live grossly extravagant lives.

I’m an ethical man, who fears nothing, and has a healthy dose of ego (enough to believe I’m personally capable of making a difference).

Now also imagine there’s no democracy, no checks and balances, and we have an absolute monarch (who rules according to a theory of divine right). This man is elected into office by a small cadre of men, who all personally benefit from this corrupt system (and therefore have no incentive or inclination to reform it).

My protests go unanswered. It’s not merely a matter of an organization so large the wheels of change move slowly. Rather I’ve been reprimanded for my protests (a clear indication that the organization has no intention of voluntarily changing, and culpability for this oppression exists at all levels of the organization, right up to the very top).

My choices are either fight or capitulate to this oppression of my people. If I do the former I put myself and my position at risk, if I do the latter I’m a coward and complicit in this oppression. For me there’s no other option, so I fight and organize my people to expel this oppressive force from my country. I win, although the organization is able to survive, the oppression of my people has been crushed, no longer are they exploited, and the power of that organization is virtually non-existent in my region. Naturally that organization will never look upon me kindly; but who cares?

So what if Martin Luther had some character flaws, Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk … was he any less great? Sure I might not want him to drive me home, but I’ll take him as general of my army any day of the week. Indeed nearly all great men in history have had as many flaws as anyone else. It shouldn’t bother the Lutheran that Martin Luther wasn’t perfect, just as it shouldn’t bother the Catholic that Pope Leo X was as corrupt as they get. However, to delude yourselves otherwise is what amuses me. Indeed for Catholics to use Luther’s character flaws as a red herring to distract from your churches culpability really makes the weakness of your argument shine. It’s classic ad hominem.

What should really bother you folks more than anything is your entire religious system is premised on the same thing every other religious system that exists today and ever existed in history was premised on … folklore and mythology. If there is any sort of being that exists outside of our cognition, it certainly isn’t described by any world religion that exists today (or any extinct ancient mythological system).

 

[yankee_doodle]

I am not sure why you are here - you have stated that you are researching.

I don’t think I ever said I was “researching” (although that has evolved into my reasoning, initially I was just tinkering around online I guess with some spare time I had).

then that is between you and your Maker.

my mom and dad won’t mind

I shall now leave you to your choices. Peace be with you.

It always amazes me that people fall for this sort of fear mongering. I set before you the choice of life and death. First, if that were true it wouldn’t be any real choice would it? If anything it would be duress of the most blatant kind (like sign this contract or I’ll blow your head off).

Then these religions instill all sorts of fear into people (most of whom are simply too gullible to know better). If you don’t believe you’ll burn in the eternal flames of hell. I mean, yeah right … you don’t seriously expect me to buy that do you?

The more time I spend here the more I view religion as an exploitative entity that feeds on and perpetuates ignorance.

 

[JRKH]

fair enough, so then an extension of the analogy is in order. Say I’m a soldier in an army, and that army begins to oppress my fellow citizens. The oppression has no rational basis, and as it turns out our corrupt politicians simply want to soak my fellow citizens out of their last dime to build elaborate palaces so they and their families can live grossly extravagant lives.

I’m an ethical man, who fears nothing, and has a healthy dose of ego (enough to believe I’m personally capable of making a difference).

Now also imagine there’s no democracy, no checks and balances, and we have an absolute monarch (who rules according to a theory of divine right). This man is elected into office by a small cadre of men, who all personally benefit from this corrupt system (and therefore have no incentive or inclination to reform it).

My protests go unanswered. It’s not merely a matter of an organization so large the wheels of change move slowly. Rather I’ve been reprimanded for my protests (a clear indication that the organization has no intention of voluntarily changing, and culpability for this oppression exists at all levels of the organization, right up to the very top).

My choices are either fight or capitulate to this oppression of my people. If I do the former I put myself and my position at risk, if I do the latter I’m a coward and complicit in this oppression. For me there’s no other option, so I fight and organize my people to expel this oppressive force from my country. I win, although the organization is able to survive, the oppression of my people has been crushed, no longer are they exploited, and the power of that organization is virtually non-existent in my region. Naturally that organization will never look upon me kindly; but who cares?

So what if Martin Luther had some character flaws, Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk … was he any less great? Sure I might not want him to drive me home, but I’ll take him as general of my army any day of the week. Indeed nearly all great men in history have had as many flaws as anyone else. It shouldn’t bother the Lutheran that Martin Luther wasn’t perfect, just as it shouldn’t bother the Catholic that Pope Leo X was as corrupt as they get. However, to delude yourselves otherwise is what amuses me. Indeed for Catholics to use Luther’s character flaws as a red herring to distract from your churches culpability really makes the weakness of your argument shine. It’s classic ad hominem.

What should really bother you folks more than anything is your entire religious system is premised on the same thing every other religious system that exists today and ever existed in history was premised on … folklore and mythology. If there is any sort of being that exists outside of our cognition, it certainly isn’t described by any world religion that exists today (or any extinct ancient mythological system).

Naturally you have not just placed a new scenerio here but carried out to include what is the right and wrong choices etc.
what you neglect to show is that after your successful revolution is that your own regime does not last becaue it is built on a basis of anarchy where everyone can decide right and wrong for themselves. So - Instead of replacing an “oppressive” regime built on sound and ancient principles, you have destroyed, not jus the Oppressors but the Principles as well.

Peace
James

 

[raumzeitmc2]

I followed your link to the piece by newadvent.org and I couldn’t help but notice the attention this man gets from your church (and how hard your church tries to tarnish this man after what … five centuries, like a school child with a grudge that just won’t go away)?

Luther, sadly (because he had remarkable talents), tarnished himself, as did Calvin et al. And no, the Church holds no “grudge;” but she must defend herself against the *relentless attacks *of heretics, something she has unfortunately had to do, not for five, but for twenty centuries!

They start out by analyzing every aspect of his life, including his “stern father” (opining that’s where Luther must have gotten his anger from … trying to rip his credibility right from the outset).

Is Luther’s life to be immune from examination? Would you too prefer to keep certain facts about his life “hidden”? As for his “credibility,” I say simply: read the Fathers! Compare Luther’s (or Calvin’s, or any other self-appointed reformer’s teachings) to theirs.

I wonder if this sort of analysis has been done on any of your corrupt popes throughout the ages?

Ah yes, that old “corrupt popes” business! But never dare mention corrupt reformers! Alas. But FYI, there has, in fact, been *considerable *discussion of the papacy over the years, including discussions of so-called “bad popes.”

It seems to me the CC has an army of scholars it retains to cover up it’s blunders (and crimes).

That’s simply ridiculous! The Church has been more that forthright in admitting her faults! I suggest you read Pastor.

Allow me to share some introductory remarks from volume 1 (of 40) of Pastor’s monumental History of the Popes.

PROFESSOR PASTOR S “History of the Popes from the close of the Middle Ages," comes to us with a singular and exceptional weight of authority.

First, because of the ample encouragement conveyed by the brief of Leo XIII when the first volume of the history was completed. Such letters of His Holiness do not, indeed, convey a critical approval of the work, but an abundant testimony to the fitness and learning of Dr. Pastor for the accomplishment of his undertaking. Secondly, because this history may be regarded as the first-fruits of the action of the Holy Father, which, a little time ago, so surprised the writers of anti-Catholic history.

Leo XIII., as it will be remembered, addressed a letter to the five Cardinals whom he had appointed as a commission to oversee the publication of historical matters contained in the Vatican Archives.

The Holy Father charged them to see that the history of the Holy See and of the Church should be written with absolute truth on the only just and imperishable principle that the historica veritas ought to be supreme, of which we have a divine example in Holy Writ, where the sins, even of Saints, are as openly recorded as the wickedness of sinners.

Thirdly, because no author as yet has written the history of the Popes with such copious evidence, drawn, not only from the Vatican Archives since they were thrown open by Leo XIII., but from a multitude of other sources hitherto never examined, as, for instance, the Consistorial Archives, the Archives of the Lateran, of the Inquisition, of the Propaganda, of the Sistine Chapel, of the Secretaryship of Briefs, and of the Library of St. Peter’s.

As to the Vatican Library, even Ranke and Gregorovius were only able to inspect a small number of the manuscripts. Beyond these, Professor Pastor has examined the Libraries and private Archives of Rome, the public and semi-public Libraries as the Angelica, the Barberina, the Casanatense, the Chigi, the Corsini, the Vallicellana, the Altieri, the Borghese, the Buoncompagni, the Anima, the Campo Santo and Santo Spirito, the Colonna, Gaetani, and Ricci. To all these may be added the Archives of Milan, Paris, Florence, Vienna and Mantua, Lucca, Modena and Naples, Aix in Provence and Treves.

If anyone will examine the notes and references at the foot of the pages in this work he will see at once that this list of authorities is not a mere catalogue of names, but of sources from which a copious and truthful history has been industriously drawn. If any further evidence were needed to show how minutely this history has been written, it will be sufficient to add that these two volumes contain, besides the Introduction, only the history of four Pontiffs, from 1417 to 1458. Nevertheless, in that brief period is to be found one of the most decisive events of history, the effect of which is in full action upon the Church and upon the world at this day.

All histories of this period, from Ranke to Creighton, will need extensive correction, and, in a large measure, to be rewritten. In the time of Nicholas V., the so-called "Renaissance " was at its height, and parted itself off into two distinct schools the heathen Humanists, and the Christian Humanists. The heathen Humanists plunged themselves, with all their intellectual culture, into the atheism and foulness of a revived paganism.

They were the forerunners of the intellectual apostasy from the Church, which, some seventy years after, broke out in Germany under the pretence of reformation. This revolt in religion of individual judgment against Divine authority was translated in the last century into the domain of politics by the first French Revolution, which has been truly described by Carlyle as the last act in the drama of Lutheranism. The Christian Humanists elaborated all intellectual culture in perfect fidelity to the revelation of the Christian faith. Nicolas V became their patron and protector, and thereby placed himself at the head of the intellectual culture which has pervaded the Catholic Church, expanding itself from the time of his Pontificate to the Pontificate of Leo XIII.

HENRY EDWARD,

Cardinal Archbishop.

October 27, 1891.

The history of the popes: from the close of the Middle Ages, 1906, B. Herder, vol. 1, pp. iii-iv.
Volume 1 at the Internet Archive (Pastor’s preface dated 15th August 1885)