Luther

[raumzeitmc2]

some truth? Believe or burn

now I see what they mean by “pillar of fire”

And then you quote Thomas Jefferson:

Millions of men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.

But being quite familiar with this quote, something appeared wrong - the wording. The word innocent was omitted.

“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity…”
Notes on Virginia, Query XVII (“published in France in 1785 and in England in 1787”).

But now that that’s straight, and having now digressed to the religious opinions of Thomas Jefferson, let us take a couple more:

The Presbyterian clergy are loudest. The most intolerant of all sects, the most tyrannical, and ambitious; ready at the word of the lawgiver, if such a word could be now obtained, to put the torch to the pile, and to rekindle in this virgin hemisphere, the flames in which their oracle Calvin consumed the poor Servetus, because he could not find in his Euclid the proposition which has demonstrated that there are one, and one is three, nor subscribe to that of Calvin that magistrates have a right to exterminate all heretics to Calvinistic creed.

To William Short, April 13, 1820

The writings of Thomas Jefferson, Volumes 15-16, 1907, Andrew Adgate Lipscomb, Richard Holland Johnston, p. 246.

And again, writing to John Adams ( April 11, 1823), Jefferson says:

I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Dæmonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5 points is not the God whom you and I acknowledge and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a dæmon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin.

The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Correspondence, cont. Reports and opinions … 1854, Henry Augustine Washington, vol. VII, p.281.

But getting back to this figure of “millions”. It is simply nonsense! Why, the Church would indeed be a *monstrous entity *were that figure true! But it is not! And you will not find a single reputable historian to defend it. The only folks that I’m aware of who do still use these kinds of hopelessly inflated figures are either the very uninformed or the extremely anti-Catholic. Sadly, these unfortunate souls are simply continuing the work of that disgraceful tissue of lies begun by the likes of the the so-called Centuriators of the 16th century.

Allow me to quote from A Brief History of No-Popery:

George Orwell observed in 1949 that: “Who controls the past, controls the future”. But Luther had anticipated this observation four hundred years previously and, as early as 1536, was making history the servant of polemics. The new interest, which urged 16th century scholars to investigate the past, was not pure history, but fuelled by a hatred for the Church. It was this attitude of Luther that inspired the formation of a team of Protestant scholars directed by Flacius Illyricus (1520 – 1575). Based at Magdeburg, each researcher was allocated one century as his field of work so as to produce ‘The History of the Christian Church’. The team became known as: ‘The Centuriators of Magdeburg’.

The Centuriators combed history for scandals and calumnies designed to prove that the whole body of Catholics had always been the foulest of humans. This would befit a Church which Luther had proclaimed as: ‘‘The Whore of Babylon”. They specialised in misrepresentation and in mutilated and forged documents. Between 1559 and 1574, thirteen volumes of the history were published. The story of a ‘Pope Joan’ was typical of its output, and the alleged finding of 6000 heads of children in a convent fishpond so as to explain why convents were built close to large lakes and swamps. The stories were propagated in foul language, which probably aided rather than hindered their circulation.

The good news, however, for all who love truth (and we all should), is that

The conspiracy against truth which originated with the Centuriators of Magdeburg has, during this century, received many mortal blows, not only at the hands of Catholics like de Maistre, Lingard, Stolberg, Hurter, Cantu, Rohrbacher, Veuillot, Gorini, Wouters, Jungmann, Brownson, Janssen, Parsons, Pastor and others, but from non-Catholics as well, such as Roscoe, Voigt, Gregorovius, Guizot and many more in the old country, and it is actually being pulverized by Starbuck of Andover on our side of the ocean.

It is time therefore that Catholics take a more decided stand against the calumnies of their enemies, not only by defending the Church as they have always done, but by making positive moves against the hostile lines, carrying the war into Africa itself.

This has become easier indeed since the illustrious Pontiff who so marvelously continues to hold the rudder of Peter’s bark has proclaimed the “open door policy” in regard to the rich archives of the Vatican.

The Three Ages of Progress, 1899, Julius Emil DeVos, preface, p. iii.

Peace.

 

[LutheranDK]

Warren Carroll’s take on Luther in “The Cleaving of Christendom” is also a great read. He’s Catholic and an amazing historian. **His contention from all the evidence and documentation in the book is that Luther planned on breaking off from the Church and had read radical anti-Catholic literature long before his “crisis” with indulgences or mental wrestling with justification by faith vs. works, etc. **Carroll’s view is that he never had any intention of remaining Catholic and that he had more than just a simple plan to reform from within…he wanted a complete overhaul long before…the book is interesting.

And what, pray tell, makes the guy come to that kind of conclusion - a conclusion that flies in the face of established knowledge on the subject?
Methinks this is (yet another) an attempt to demonize Luther, in order to use the same old song:
“When THIS guy said this and this, it can’t be right, because it was HIM who said it.”

 

[LutheranDK]

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

This rant was so insane that I just don’t know where to start refuting it!

 

[yankee_doodle]

And then you quote Thomas Jefferson:

But being quite familiar with this quote, something appeared wrong - the wording. The word innocent was omitted.

“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity…”
Notes on Virginia, Query XVII (“published in France in 1785 and in England in 1787”).

But now that that’s straight, and having now digressed to the religious opinions of Thomas Jefferson, let us take a couple more:

The writings of Thomas Jefferson, Volumes 15-16, 1907, Andrew Adgate Lipscomb, Richard Holland Johnston, p. 246.

And again, writing to John Adams ( April 11, 1823), Jefferson says:

The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Correspondence, cont. Reports and opinions … 1854, Henry Augustine Washington, vol. VII, p.281.

But getting back to this figure of “millions”. It is simply nonsense! Why, the Church would indeed be a *monstrous entity *were that figure true! But it is not! And you will not find a single reputable historian to defend it. The only folks that I’m aware of who do still use these kinds of hopelessly inflated figures are either the very uninformed or the extremely anti-Catholic. Sadly, these unfortunate souls are simply continuing the work of that disgraceful tissue of lies begun by the likes of the the so-called Centuriators of the 16th century.

Allow me to quote from A Brief History of No-Popery:

The good news, however, for all who love truth (and we all should), is that

The Three Ages of Progress, 1899, Julius Emil DeVos, preface, p. iii.

Peace.

OK Jefferson didn’t like Calvinists, what’s your point? Neither do I (though I’m also sure he had little love for the Roman church … in other words, we had much in common).

 

[yankee_doodle]

Can this tit-for-tat be ended? It adds nothing to the discussion.

Many bad things happened during the Reformation. Many died - Killed by BOTH sides saying “believe or burn”.

This continual tendancy of blaming the other is of no use 500 years on. Dialog should bring us closer to God and not further from Him.

Peace
James

I’m on the other, other side … I think protestants and Catholics are bickering over ancient #$@!

 

[raumzeitmc2]

OK Jefferson didn’t like Calvinists, what’s your point? Neither do I (though I’m also sure he had little love for the Roman church … in other words, we had much in common).

No, Jefferson wasn’t too crazy about Catholics (at least not the Jesuits)! But the point is this: if anyone knew a tyrant, it was Jefferson. And Jefferson certainly understood that Calvinists are implacable tyrants! But that is what they were from the beginning, as were the Lutherans. Both Calvin and Luther called for the killing of Catholics. Both were utterly intolerant. Both were utterly tyrannical, through and through. And yet, incredibly, you praise the Reformation for breaking free from the so-called tyranny of the Church! Unbelievable!!!

As for your rather dark view of Catholic Church history, perhaps this article I posted recently, Exposing the Light of The “Dark Ages,” will better your opinion.

Part 1.
Part 2.
Part 3.

Peace.

 

[JonNC]

Of the 1500’s Catholic Church, or the 1500’s reformers, I wonder who Jan Hus would have considered more tyranical, more intolerant?

But as is usual with threads such as these, this one only serves the purposes of those on both sides who view polemics and hostility as the way to respond to Christ’s call for unity. Sad.

Jon

 

[yankee_doodle]

No, Jefferson wasn’t too crazy about Catholics (at least not the Jesuits)! But the point is this: if anyone knew a tyrant, it was Jefferson. And Jefferson certainly understood that Calvinists are implacable tyrants! But that is what they were from the beginning, as were the Lutherans. Both Calvin and Luther called for the killing of Catholics. Both were utterly intolerant. Both were utterly tyrannical, through and through. And yet, incredibly, you praise the Reformation for breaking free from the so-called tyranny of the Church! Unbelievable!!!

As for your rather dark view of Catholic Church history, perhaps this article I posted recently, Exposing the Light of The “Dark Ages,” will better your opinion.

Part 1.
Part 2.
Part 3.

Peace.

If Calvin and Luther were tyrants its only because they learned from the best … the Catholic Church (who were torturing and burning men and women alive for mere dissent since the 11th century … long before the reformation). Indeed your church held such an oppressive grip over Europe it even killed Tyndale for merely publishing a bible, and persecuted all those who owned a Tyndale bible.

Be Catholic or die. Oppose us and die. Dissent and die. Not only die, but burn to death. You can defend it all you like, but you certainly won’t find a receptive ear with me. As for the Catholic revisionist history, save it (I’m not buying).

 

[JonNC]

If Calvin and Luther were tyrants its only because they learned from the best … the Catholic Church (who were torturing and burning men and women alive for mere dissent since the 11th century … long before the reformation). Indeed your church held such an oppressive grip over Europe it even killed Tyndale for merely publishing a bible, and persecuted all those who owned a Tyndale bible.

Be Catholic or die. Oppose us and die. Dissent and die. Not only die, but burn to death. You can defend it all you like, but you certainly won’t find a receptive ear with me. As for the Catholic revisionist history, save it (I’m not buying).

And my question is: how is that relevent today, other than as part of history? How does this, not a discussion of history, but a tit-fot-tat back-n-forth, improve dialogue between various Christian communions, and even non-Christians and Christians.

Assuming that Catholics and Lutherans today are not guilty of these 500 year old crimes, I see no need to continually bring them up with the intent to beat someone over the head with them.
I do not judge Catholics or Catholicism by the worst acts of the worst who claimed it. Instead, I judge it by the faith of the best of her leaders and followers, and the fact that they lift high the cross and proclaim the Love of Christ. May God forever bless them.

Jon

 

[josie_L]

If Calvin and Luther were tyrants its only because they learned from the best … the Catholic Church (who were torturing and burning men and women alive for mere dissent since the 11th century … long before the reformation). Indeed your church held such an oppressive grip over Europe it even killed Tyndale for merely publishing a bible, and persecuted all those who owned a Tyndale bible.

Be Catholic or die. Oppose us and die. Dissent and die. Not only die, but burn to death. You can defend it all you like, but you certainly won’t find a receptive ear with me. As for the Catholic revisionist history, save it (I’m not buying).

Are you an ex-Catholic?

 

[josie_L]

If Calvin and Luther were tyrants its only because they learned from the best … the Catholic Church (who were torturing and burning men and women alive for mere dissent since the 11th century … long before the reformation). Indeed your church held such an oppressive grip over Europe it even killed Tyndale for merely publishing a bible, and persecuted all those who owned a Tyndale bible.

Be Catholic or die. Oppose us and die. Dissent and die. Not only die, but burn to death. You can defend it all you like, but you certainly won’t find a receptive ear with me. As for the Catholic revisionist history, save it (I’m not buying).

No they didn’t kill Tyndale for merely publishing a Bible they killed him for being a heretic in that he wrote a heretical version of the Bible, i.e., with many mistakes that would have caused harm to the people.

 

[yankee_doodle]

No they didn’t kill Tyndale for merely publishing a Bible they killed him for being a heretic in that he wrote a heretical version of the Bible, i.e., with many mistakes that would have caused harm to the people.

The Tyndale Bible is still in publication, and I suppose his heresy was translating directly from Greek and Hebrew to English (btw, the CC murdered him before he completely finished his translation).

It’s amazing how far gone some of you guys seem. I mean how can you really excuse the murder of someone for publishing a book? It’s pure insanity! This sort of lunacy is an enemy of freedom; and no amount of spin can make the murder of this man right. In fact I ascribe little credibility to anyone who would try.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Are you an ex-Catholic?

goodness no

 

[yankee_doodle]

And my question is: how is that relevent today, other than as part of history? How does this, not a discussion of history, but a tit-fot-tat back-n-forth, improve dialogue between various Christian communions, and even non-Christians and Christians.

I’m not sure there can be civil dialog between Christians and non-theists (or non-Christians, or maybe even between Catholics and Protestants). We’re inherently adversaries.

Assuming that Catholics and Lutherans today are not guilty of these 500 year old crimes, I see no need to continually bring them up with the intent to beat someone over the head with them.

maybe fair logic with regard to Lutherans (and other Protestants); but you guys don’t assert you’re an infallible institution either (and assert you’ve always been infallible because an illusory god prefers you over all others on earth).

Therefore, it’s perfectly logical to use history to debunk the Catholic claim of infallibility (and you notice they will always defend their history, no matter how stained with blood, because they understand the logical implications of saying their institution was wrong).

I do not judge Catholics or Catholicism by the worst acts of the worst who claimed it. Instead, I judge it by the faith of the best of her leaders and followers, and the fact that they lift high the cross and proclaim the Love of Christ. May God forever bless them.

Jon

I use what I believe is a more practical method of analysis. I look at the totality of action through time; and credibility.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Of the 1500’s Catholic Church, or the 1500’s reformers, I wonder who Jan Hus would have considered more tyranical, more intolerant?

Do you consider an act of self-defense “tyrannical”? For this is the proper way to characterize the Church’s response to heretics. Remember, oftentimes it was not just the erring opinions of heretics that was the problem; they also tended to be violent disruptors, not only of the peace of the Church, but the social order as well. If you read the article below, you’ll see just how terrible certain of these heretics (in this instance, the Cathari or “the pure” could actually be, and how these dreadful creatures even insinuated themselves into the Church, so as to destroy her from within!

*How the Inquisition Began * By Mark Fellows Catholic Family News, August 1999.

If Calvin and Luther were tyrants its only because they learned from the best … the Catholic Church (who were torturing and burning men and women alive for mere dissent since the 11th century … long before the reformation). Indeed your church held such an oppressive grip over Europe it even killed Tyndale for merely publishing a bible, and persecuted all those who owned a Tyndale bible.

Be Catholic or die. Oppose us and die. Dissent and die. Not only die, but burn to death. You can defend it all you like, but you certainly won’t find a receptive ear with me. As for the Catholic revisionist history, save it (I’m not buying).

My friend, it sounds as though you have a lot of hostility toward the Church!

As for “revisionist history,” I’ve certainly not knowingly done such a thing.

Re: Tyndale, I would simply ask you to read this:

Tyndale’s Heresy: The Real Story of the ‘Father of the English Bible’ By Matthew A.C. Newsome.

Here, you’ll discover, among other things, that Tyndale was most certainly *not *killed “for merely publishing a bible.” Further, he was a “mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority.”

Ah yes, the contempt - indeed the hatred - of Church authority! That is indeed, when all is said and done, *really *what all this hullabaloo is about!

And my question is: how is that relevent today, other than as part of history? How does this, not a discussion of history, but a tit-fot-tat back-n-forth, improve dialogue between various Christian communions, and even non-Christians and Christians.

a. There has been a terrible injustice done to Christ by those who have unceasingly attacked his Church.

b. The many historical misconceptions and outright falsehoods about the Catholic Church that have appeared in these and countless other forums by various posters absolutely demand a response.

I do not judge Catholics or Catholicism by the worst acts of the worst who claimed it. Instead, I judge it by the faith of the best of her leaders and followers, and the fact that they lift high the cross and proclaim the Love of Christ. May God forever bless them.

On that score, we fully agree!!

And may God bless (and one day bring home) our Lutheran brethren!

 

[josie_L]

The Tyndale Bible is still in publication, and I suppose his heresy was translating directly from Greek and Hebrew to English (btw, the CC murdered him before he completely finished his translation).

It’s amazing how far gone some of you guys seem. I mean how can you really excuse the murder of someone for publishing a book? It’s pure insanity! This sort of lunacy is an enemy of freedom; and no amount of spin can make the murder of this man right. In fact I ascribe little credibility to anyone who would try.

Let me put this in words you understand, I don’t care what you think of me Yankee, how shocking is that? Furthermore, I don’t like it when things are inaccurately portrayed.

 

[josie_L]

goodness no

But you were raised a Christian?

 

[JRKH]

I’m not sure there can be civil dialog between Christians and non-theists (or non-Christians, or maybe even between Catholics and Protestants). We’re inherently adversaries.

So - Are you here for dialog and understanding, or are you here to hunt and attack an “Adversary”?

Peace
James

 

[yankee_doodle]

But you were raised a Christian?

formerly, protestant … but in practice, not really (although I did go through a phase in high school … and I did have an aunt who was the family super-Episcopalian. What a drag she was, you know the one everyone avoided at family picnics ).

 

[yankee_doodle]

So - Are you here for dialog and understanding, or are you here to hunt and attack an “Adversary”?

Peace
James

not sure really at this point. I would say dialog (I might have thought there could be understanding when I first came here, but I’m now fairly convinced there can’t be).

The question, how should I treat an adversary? How does anyone treat an adversary? Adversarial right …

When you debate someone do you pretend you’re not debating and don’t disagree? If it concerns deeply held beliefs, any strong objection (no matter how delicately put) will be offensive (and will usually incite an aggressive response). That’s the nature of debate.