Martin Luther supported polygamy...

[mgrfin]

I think that the poor prince needed a lawyer to read this letter. However, after sifting through it, we finally get to the mustard seed:

There is no need of being much concerned for what men will say, provided all goes right with conscience. So far do we approve it, and in those circumstances only by us specified; for the Gospel hath neither recalled nor forbid what was permitted in the law of Moses with respect to marriage. Jesus Christ has not changed the external economy, but added justice only, and life everlasting, for reward. He teaches the true way of obeying God, and endeavors to repair the corruption of nature.

And so, in lawyerisk language, Martin Luther justified polygamy by citing the old and new testament.

I think Jesus Christ changed and condemned the practice of divorce.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

But the fact remains that

1. All translations are theologically biased, and
2. Even those translations that are more blatantly biased than others, in a way that distorts the meaning of the original, are unlikely to be the result of deliberate dishonesty

Edwin

(I provided an anwer to your post, but somehow it got lost in cyberspace, so I’m doing it over).

You say all (scriptural) translations are theologically biased, so Luther’s response is that the addition of the word was his own doing, and later that the German demanded it. So you would say it was a theological bias on his part to add it as well.

You and I both admit to not having that deep an understanding of the Luther’s German. It is easy to see however that the addition definitely added to his theology of justification by faith only. I think Luther’s later explanation was a rationalization.

As for the Lutheran site you are quoting from, I am familiar with it. It claims great catholic writers who used the addition of alone.
Whether that is true or not, I don’t know. I know what the Church has taught on justification by faith, and teaches today. We are justified by faith, to say otherwise is heresy. To say that Augustine or Thomas Aquinas was a Lutheran is totally false.

We understand how grace works, and how we cooperate with the actual grace God sends us. We understand good works, as required in our religion, and also the concept of merit.

We are not OSAS’; we have no guarantee of salvation even if we have faith to move mountains; we believe in meriting by good works one of the many mansions God has in store for us.

The recent joint statement between Lutherans and Catholics never got that far. Roman Catholicism will never accept Luther’s assertion that we are justified by faith alone, no matter how justified Luther felt that the German language demanded the addition. The anathemas of Trent still apply. Our current Holy Father is masterful theologian and a German. He made clear that we were not accepting of a joint statement on Lutheranism accepting of ‘justification by faith alone’.

We don’t exclude good works, and merit, and that is the point. Luther most definitely declared his position of works, and accused the Catholic Church of teaching people of buying their way into heaven by merit and good works. Which is a falsehood and also heretical. If he didn’t rant so much about good works, and included it in his theology of justification, he might have gotten somewhere.

Luther claimed that the German language required the addition of this word. I am skeptical of that, and it was a rationalization on his part. .

Luther dismantled the sacramental system, and eventually his followers, the priesthood. His theology totally confuses me. Good works are sins? Why bother loving my neighbor, or feeding the poor and hungry? I’m getting to heaven by faith, and I can take a pass on the rest? His commentary on Galatians is a disgrace to christianity.

The Lutheranism of Luther, and the Lutheranism of the current Lutheran church are not the same. What we argue about Luther is a scholarly exercise, but what the Catholic Church teaches and what the Lutheran church teaches is what matters. I think we teach exactly what we taught when Luther was alive.
Modern day Lutherans can’t say that.

peace

 

[Calvinator]

The following is from beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com.

I haven’t tracked down any of the quotes yet but we see cardinal Bellarmine seems to think that there were others beside Luther who thought Romans 3:28 should be translated with “alone”.

4. Previous translations of the word “alone” in Romans 3:28
Luther offers another line of reasoning in his “Open Letter on Translating” that many of the current CyberCatholics ignore and most Protestants are not aware of
“Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me”

Now here comes the fun part in this discussion.

The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522) “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38) cf Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref to the Epistle) See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]) Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881) “solam justificatur per fidem” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones 114-18)

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero cogitationes parerent.] In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII 40) licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua sed viva illa intelligatur fides quae per dilectionem operatur tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus Cap. XXII §40 PL 40:223

Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.

 

[mgrfin]

QUOTE]

I am familar with that anti-catholic site. First off, Augustine, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Bernard, some of whom are Fathers and Doctors of the Church were not Lutherans, did not believe in Justification by faith alone.

To the contrary, they believe in the necessary of cooperation with grace to be saved, and good works and merit.

I wonder if these references were not taken out of context. You mean to say that this Catholic author was saying that these great and learned theologians were Lutherans? You mean that Fitzmeyer didn’t put these men in context of Catholic teaching?

Nonsense. And you are sure that Luther’s letter justifying his adddition of ‘alone’ wasn’t a later on rationalization.

Read if you will, Luther’s commentary on Galatians. You then will get a feel for what he meant by “justification by faith only”.

Understand, Catholicism teaches justification by faith. To say ‘faith only’ is heretical, all these great authors (if they got it wrong), to the contrary not withstanding.

Read, please Canons 1 (justification by faith) and (faith only condemned) 9 of the Council of Trent if you want to get the issue straight about what the Church teaches (Sixth Session on Justification).

The infallible teaching on this matter is in Trent. And I
know that the teaching of Trent is on the basis of Catholic teaching and tradition including the Fathers and Doctors of the Church despite what this Lutheran site says. The whole basis of this site’s claim is Fitzmeyer, so we had better read this guy in context.

peace

 

[Calvinator]

I am familar with that anti-catholic site. First off, Augustine, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Bernard, some of whom are Fathers and Doctors of the Church were not Lutherans, did not believe in Justification by faith alone.

To the contrary, they believe in the necessary of cooperation with grace to be saved, and good works and merit.

I wonder if these references were not taken out of context. You mean to say that this Catholic author was saying that these great and learned theologians were Lutherans? You mean that Fitzmeyer didn’t put these men in context of Catholic teaching?

Nonsense. And you are sure that Luther’s letter justifying his adddition of ‘alone’ wasn’t a later on rationalization.

Read if you will, Luther’s commentary on Galatians. You then will get a feel for what he meant by “justification by faith only”.

Understand, Catholicism teaches justification by faith. To say ‘faith only’ is heretical, all these great authors (if they got it wrong), to the contrary not withstanding.

Read, please Canons 1 (justification by faith) and (faith only condemned) 9 of the Council of Trent if you want to get the issue straight about what the Church teaches (Sixth Session on Justification).

The infallible teaching on this matter is in Trent. And I
know that the teaching of Trent is on the basis of Catholic teaching and tradition including the Fathers and Doctors of the Church despite what this Lutheran site says. The whole basis of this site’s claim is Fitzmeyer, so we had better read this guy in context.

peace

Uh…no, the whole basis of the site’s claim is not based on Fitzmeyer alone.

He quotes Bellermine and I’m sure you know who he is.
**
Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):**

Not to mention the fathers mentioned in the list.

By the way, Luther had this to say…"Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.”, and this is quoted in the article.

So, no, the sites claim isn’t on just one man.

Now as to much of your above post, you miss the mark. Let’s examine what you have to say:
a.) First off, Augustine, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Bernard, some of whom are Fathers and Doctors of the Church were not Lutherans…

Nobody ever said they were.

b.) You mean to say that this Catholic author was saying that these great and learned theologians were Lutherans?

Again, nobody said they were Lutherans or even hinted at such a claim.

c.) You mean that Fitzmeyer didn’t put these men in context of Catholic teaching?

Well, Fitzmeyer apparently agreed with Bellarmine and Luther on this point? You do know who Bellarmine is don’t you?

d.) The infallible teaching on this matter is in Trent.

We aren’t discussing what you church teaches or what Trent says as it is completely irrelevant to our discussion.

e.) I know that the teaching of Trent is on the basis of Catholic teaching and tradition including the Fathers and Doctors of the Church despite what this Lutheran site says.

So, all the fathers and doctors of the church are in complete agreement with what Trent says?

The “Lutheran” site quotes Bellarmine and Fitzmeyer as well as Luther so it’s not just what the site has to say.

f.) The whole basis of this site’s claim is Fitzmeyer, so we had better read this guy in context.

No, the whole basis of this site’s claim is not Fitzmeyer.

 

[Calvinator]

Uh…no, the whole basis of the site’s claim is not based on Fitzmeyer alone.

He quotes Bellermine and I’m sure you know who he is.
**
Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):**

Not to mention the fathers mentioned in the list.

By the way, Luther had this to say…"Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.”, and this is quoted in the article.

So, no, the sites claim isn’t on just one man.

Now as to much of your above post, you miss the mark. Let’s examine what you have to say:
a.) First off, Augustine, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Bernard, some of whom are Fathers and Doctors of the Church were not Lutherans…

Nobody ever said they were.

b.) You mean to say that this Catholic author was saying that these great and learned theologians were Lutherans?

Again, nobody said they were Lutherans or even hinted at such a claim.

c.) You mean that Fitzmeyer didn’t put these men in context of Catholic teaching?

Well, Fitzmeyer apparently agreed with Bellarmine and Luther on this point? You do know who Bellarmine is don’t you?

d.) The infallible teaching on this matter is in Trent.

We aren’t discussing what you church teaches or what Trent says as it is completely irrelevant to our discussion.

e.) I know that the teaching of Trent is on the basis of Catholic teaching and tradition including the Fathers and Doctors of the Church despite what this Lutheran site says.

So, all the fathers and doctors of the church are in complete agreement with what Trent says?

The “Lutheran” site quotes Bellarmine and Fitzmeyer as well as Luther so it’s not just what the site has to say.

f.) The whole basis of this site’s claim is Fitzmeyer, so we had better read this guy in context.

No, the whole basis of this site’s claim is not Fitzmeyer.

By the way, I just realized you are completely twisting this. The discussion is whether or not anyone other than Luther translated Romans 3:28 with alone, not what anyones theological opinion of justification was.

 

[mgrfin]

He quotes Bellermine and I’m sure you know who he is.
**
Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):**

.

Robert Bellarmine would be spinning in his place in heaven for anyone, including that anti-catholic site that he was anywhere near Luther or his teaching.

He was a Jesuit theologian, later a Cardinal. Eventually he was canonized, and declared a Doctor of the Church. He wrote a well known treatise on Grace, Justification, free will and good works.

I haven’t read the treatise, but I assure you, in those days it was certainly Anti-Martin Luther.

He was one of those Papists that Luther hated.

peace

 

[Calvinator]

Robert Bellarmine would be spinning in his place in heaven for anyone, including that anti-catholic site that he was anywhere near Luther or his teaching.

He was a Jesuit theologian, later a Cardinal. Eventually he was canonized, and declared a Doctor of the Church. He wrote a well known treatise on Grace, Justification, free will and good works.

I haven’t read the treatise, but I assure you, in those days it was certainly Anti-Martin Luther.

He was one of those Papists that Luther hated.

peace

No one ever said Bellarmine agreed with Luther. This isn’t about if someone agreed with Luther or not.

From the quote it appears that Bellarmine believed that others besides Luther used the word alone when dealing with the text.

 

[mgrfin]

By the way, I just realized you are completely twisting this. The discussion is whether or not anyone other than Luther translated Romans 3:28 with alone, not what anyones theological opinion of justification was.

I am not twisting anything. If Luther claimed:…"Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.”, That is an heretical statement, and Luther was wrong to quote that is what Ambrose, and Augustine and other said it before him. It is you and Luther who are twisting Catholic teaching from the Fathers and Doctors of the church. Augustine, nor Ambrose, nor any of the others ever said that we are justified by faith alone. “Alone” is the key here, just as it was in the Council of Trent.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

No one ever said Bellarmine agreed with Luther. This isn’t about if someone agreed with Luther or not.

From the quote it appears that Bellarmine believed that others besides Luther used the word alone when dealing with the text.

The anti-Catholic website you are quoting didn’t put Fitzmeyer in context, and Bellarmine (and the others) are taken out of context.

Otherwise you are saying that Bellarmine contradicted the Council of Trent, which is preposterous.

Maybe now you have a feel for what the addition of that word by Luther meant to Catholic Theology, and why everyone is so upset by it.

peace

 

[Calvinator]

The anti-Catholic website you are quoting didn’t put Fitzmeyer in context, and Bellarmine (and the others) are taken out of context.

Otherwise you are saying that Bellarmine contradicted the Council of Trent, which is preposterous.

Maybe now you have a feel for what the addition of that word by Luther meant to Catholic Theology, and why everyone is so upset by it.

peace

You have completely missed the point.

I never said Bellarmine or any of the others agreed with Luther’s theology and have said this now several times.

Yet, you respond with “Otherwise you are saying that Bellarmine contradicted the Council of Trent, which is preposterous.”

Bellarmine is said to have listed several fathers who also used the word alone in their commentaries or else where when dealing with the text. Again, no one ever said Bellarmine or any of the others were in lock step w/ Luther.

 

[Calvinator]

I am not twisting anything. If Luther claimed:…"Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.”, That is an heretical statement, and Luther was wrong to quote that is what Ambrose, and Augustine and other said it before him. It is you and Luther who are twisting Catholic teaching from the Fathers and Doctors of the church. Augustine, nor Ambrose, nor any of the others ever said that we are justified by faith alone. “Alone” is the key here, just as it was in the Council of Trent.

peace

How is it heretical to point out that someone else utilized the word alone when dealing with the text?

 

[mgrfin]

No one ever said Bellarmine agreed with Luther. This isn’t about if someone agreed with Luther or not.

From the quote it appears that Bellarmine believed that others besides Luther used the word alone when dealing with the text.

It is interesting to read what is said in this anti-catholic site.
The Book by Fitzmyer is Romans, with a commentary, costing $219 on Amazon. Apparently, the Lutheran site couldn’t afford to buy a copy of the book either.

I gleaned as much from Amazon as they did.

First of all, Bellarmine treatise is quoted: DISPUTES CONCERNING THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.

Please note how many of the 8 references are actually referring to Roman 3:28.
Origen (Comm on Romans)
Hilary (No)
Basil (No)
Ambrosiaster (Yes)
Chrysostom (No)
Cyril (No)
Basil (No)
Theodoret (No)
Thomas (Translated 3:28) without alone

So without the actual text in hand, this site intentionally misleads us. And we don’t know the context of what these various authors actually said. I am personally sure that Augustine, Thomas, and Bellarmine never understood justification in terms of faith only.
The other authors fall into line. They all agree with Trent I am sure.

peace

So the site can’t be trusted.

 

[Calvinator]

It is interesting to read what is said in this anti-catholic site.
The Book by Fitzmyer is Romans, with a commentary, costing $219 on Amazon. Apparently, the Lutheran site couldn’t afford to buy a copy of the book either.

I gleaned as much from Amazon as they did.

First of all, Bellarmine treatise is quoted: DISPUTES CONCERNING THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.

Please note how many of the 8 references are actually referring to Roman 3:28.
Origen (Comm on Romans)
Hilary (No)
Basil (No)
Ambrosiaster (Yes)
Chrysostom (No)
Cyril (No)
Basil (No)
Theodoret (No)
Thomas (Translated 3:28) without alone

So without the actual text in hand, this site intentionally misleads us. And we don’t know the context of what these various authors actually said. I am personally sure that Augustine, Thomas, and Bellarmine never understood justification in terms of faith only.
The other authors fall into line. They all agree with Trent I am sure.

peace

So the site can’t be trusted.

You said "I am personally sure that Augustine, Thomas, and Bellarmine never understood justification in terms of faith only.
The other authors fall into line. They all agree with Trent I am sure."

Yet, as I have explained several times now, no one has made the claim that Augustine, Thomas, or whoever understood justification the same way Luther did.

Additionally, Bellarmine was only mentioned as catologuing the uses of the word alone. It was never mentioned that Bellarmine used the word alone when dealing with Romans 3:28.

Me thinks you don’t read my posts at all.

 

[mgrfin]

You said "I am personally sure that Augustine, Thomas, and Bellarmine never understood justification in terms of faith only.
The other authors fall into line. They all agree with Trent I am sure."

Yet, as I have explained several times now, no one has made the claim that Augustine, Thomas, or whoever understood justification the same way Luther did.

Additionally, Bellarmine was only mentioned as catologuing the uses of the word alone. It was never mentioned that Bellarmine used the word alone when dealing with Romans 3:28.

Me thinks you don’t read my posts at all.

No I read your posts.
I am responding to one, and in the interim you send another, so it seems I’m missing something. No, I read them.
peace

PS It is not necessary to use big block letters, or red oversized type. I can read, and I read them all. You make it seem I am some sort of idiot.

peace

If you believe in what you say, what was the purpose of introducing this misleading, and incomplete info from this non-catholic site???

peace

 

[Calvinator]

PS It is not necessary to use big block letters, or red oversized type. I can read, and I read them all. You make it seem I am some sort of idiot.

I won’t do that again, I just wanted to call your attention to a particular point.

 

[Protestant101]

History is clear: Luther supported polygamy.

Are you that much a die-hard Lutheran?

peace

Actually; YOUR version of history is not clear. Neither you or anyone else has produced one iota of evidence that can be easily verified, (if at all) by the general public. Many cults and fanatics use this same technique where they drum up snippets of “evidence” which is so obscure and rare that it cannot ever be verified by anyone but them of course. Why are you following in their train?

The fruits of Luther’s ministry are what reveals the real character of his ministry; and this one, great reformer led many to Christ; and pointed people to God’s Word constantly.

 

[mgrfin]

.

You are totally wrong, and I refer you to a couple, and there are more, quotes:

Why me in post #140: I think that the poor prince needed a lawyer to read this letter. However, after sifting through it, we finally get to the mustard seed:
Quote:
There is no need of being much concerned for what men will say, provided all goes right with conscience. So far do we approve it, and in those circumstances only by us specified; for the Gospel hath neither recalled nor forbid what was permitted in the law of Moses with respect to marriage. Jesus Christ has not changed the external economy, but added justice only, and life everlasting, for reward. He teaches the true way of obeying God, and endeavors to repair the corruption of nature.
Unquote
And so, in lawyerisk language, Martin Luther justified polygamy by citing the old and new testament
Luther did support the polygamy. Any quote you have regarding his denial is fallacious.

The article from the Catholic Enclyclopedia makes the whole story clear: I won’t repeat it here, because it is in my post #123, or you check out C.E. yourself.

peace

 

[mark_a]

Many cults and fanatics use this same technique where they drum up snippets of “evidence” which is so obscure and rare that it cannot ever be verified by anyone but them of course.

I’m sure this comes as a surprise to most Catholics, maybe even the pope himself.

I find it strange how Protestants will defend Luther to the death on “faith” issues, but ignore the elephant in the room when it comes to his “morals” teachings, especially when it impacts their own lives.

 

[Protestant101]

You are totally wrong, and I refer you to a couple, and there are more, quotes:

or you check out C.E. yourself.

peace

Of course, there are more quotes; I am sure you can dig a few more out of the eternal woodwork of mysterious documents that “prove” your supposed case against Luther. Actually; I find this whole thing quite hilarious - the way some of you struggle so to discredit Luther. I find it interesting that you concentrate heavily on his character, and other psychological aspects. But, ultimately, the quotes you supply are only that; it is not demonstrated by the CE or other sources, the correct context of said quotes; and it still is not demonstrated to the public how we can easily verify the quotes as true or false; and as to what their context is.

Your attacks on Luther, perhaps have a few minor elements of truth to it, yet, it is hard to see this as a problem that the Catholic Church has with Luther, who is one man. It looks more like an attack on Protestants in general, using one man as the scape-goat for all your allegations.

Luther wasn’t perfect, and he never claimed to be. If, what you said was even half true; I would imagine that it was simply a case of him expressing something that he did not view as “doctrine” but as a private thought or practice, not necessarily inspired. Catholics do this all the time when some poor unsuspecting Protestant tries to ask about some of the Popes and the disgusting heinous things they have done in the past; much worse than what Luther ever did. Catholics dismiss it away by saying: “Oh; it isn’t official teaching” or “it is only private revelation and not needed for salvation;” or “it was civil powers that did that;” yet, all you can do to poor Luther who is dead anyway is to demonize him with half-quotes and misquotes??

If you were just asking questions about Luther; it would be different, but you all make some pretty heavy insinuations. All I say is “Help Yourself.” You haven’t proven anything; yet.