Martin Luther supported polygamy...

  • Thread starter Thread starter why_me
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ginger2 said:
Two things mgrfin:
First it is nice of you to excuse fiery from apologizing. However, she didn’t intend to, anyway.

Second, I did not attach the Church Fathers. I simply pointed out that they have said things contrary to dogma.

By your reasoning, telling the truth is attacking? I did not misquote anyone, nor did I say they were bad people. I simply pointed out they did not always agree with each other.

On the other hand, I cannot say the same about Catholic treatment of Luther.

All the quote from Church Fathers I quoted can be verified thru Catholic resources.

Which is another thing. I have been accused of not giving the sources for the quotes which is false. If I even forgot to include the source I immediately supplied it when asked.

Catholic documents support what I have said about the Church Fathers, yet I have been called a liar.

Go figure 🤷
Click to expand...
Particularly annoying is quoting the Fathers as saying Mary is sinful, but when you quote them, you really have to search and interpolate what was the sin?? Some doubt, according to Origen?

They may have said it, but your interpretation is a real stretch. Then you preach to us to be more charitable.

BTW, to all the Lutherans out there who tell us that good works are evil, and that we are justified by faith only, I would like them to explain to me my favorite verstes from St. Paul:
1st Cor 13, 1-13

peace
 
mgrfin,

I was not giving my interpretation, but that of the Church. The Catholic Encyclopedia says “Some few patristic writers expressed their doubts as to the presence of minor moral defects in Our Blessed Lady.”

I do not speak ill of the Virgin Mary.

My comments have been concerning the errors of Church Fathers. I just happened to quote their errors concerning Mary, because these would be considered serious errors in the eyes of Catholics.
 
Ginger2 said:
mgrfin,

I was not giving my interpretation, but that of the Church. The Catholic Encyclopedia says “Some few patristic writers expressed their doubts as to the presence of minor moral defects in Our Blessed Lady.”

I do not speak ill of the Virgin Mary.

My comments have been concerning the errors of Church Fathers. I just happened to quote their errors concerning Mary, because these would be considered serious errors in the eyes of Catholics.
Click to expand...
To the contrary, these ‘errors’ of which you speak are miniscule.

peace
 
Ginger2 said:
mgrfin,

I was not giving my interpretation, but that of the Church. The Catholic Encyclopedia says “Some few patristic writers expressed their doubts as to the presence of minor moral defects in Our Blessed Lady.”

QUOTE]

Re-reading this I am not sure what you are trying to say, or what the quote says, for that matter.

These patristic fathers had doubts that there were even minor moral defects in Our Blessed Lady. Is that what they are saying? And if so, what are you saying?

peace
Click to expand...
 
I think fiery would disagree that these errors are minuscule.

The degree of severity should not make a difference to the point I am making. But I’ll play along…How extreme does the error have to be for you to acknowledge my point?

Crusades? Would that count as a material error?

Or should I find something somewhere in between?
 
Ginger2 said:
I think fiery would disagree that these errors are minuscule.

The degree of severity should not make a difference to the point I am making. But I’ll play along…How extreme does the error have to be for you to acknowledge my point?

Crusades? Would that count as a material error?

Or should I find something somewhere in between?
Click to expand...
I’m not following any of this.

What I understood, or misunderstood, was that some Fathers said Mary was not sinless, and you supposed quoted two of them who said Mary was guilty of some sort of doubt. You equated that doubt with some sin of Mary.

Then I reread your post, and I have this:
"I was not giving my interpretation, but that of the Church. The Catholic Encyclopedia says “Some few patristic writers expressed their doubts as to the presence of minor moral defects in Our Blessed Lady.”

That post seemed to say that some Fathers expressed doubts OF MINIOR MORAL DEFECTS OF BVM, which would mean they believed Mary sinless.

So, I’m totally lost.

Let me say this: the Immaculate Conception means that Mary from the first instant of conception never sinned. But that was not a doctrine of the Faith until 1854, so any Father or any person was not required to believe in Mary’s sinlessness.

Help me out, Ginger. Straighten us all out this confusion.

peace
 
see post #216

The catholic Encyclopedia is poorly worded in that paragraph, but it is saying that some fathers thought Mary sinned by doubting and for “vainglory”

Then the encyclopedia goes on to say that these “writers” do not represent Apostolic Tradition, but are merely giving their private opinions. (I am paraphrasing)

The point of all this has nothing to do with Mary. I do not believe Mary suffered from “vainglory” I am only using statements about Mary because these would be considered serious errors in the eyes of Catholics.

And that is what makes my point concerning this thread.
 
Ginger2 said:
see post #216

The catholic Encyclopedia is poorly worded in that paragraph, but it is saying that some fathers thought Mary sinned by doubting and for “vainglory”

Then the encyclopedia goes on to say that these “writers” do not represent Apostolic Tradition, but are merely giving their private opinions. (I am paraphrasing)

The point of all this has nothing to do with Mary. I do not believe Mary suffered from “vainglory” I am only using statements about Mary because these would be considered serious errors in the eyes of Catholics.

And that is what makes my point concerning this thread.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation.

I was hoping that some Lutheran out there who tell us that good works are evil, and that we are justified by faith only to explain to me my favorite verstes from St. Paul:
1st Cor 13, 1-13

peace
 
mgrfin said:
One of the great lies of the Reformation was that Luther found the Bible hidden away in his Monastery. We know every monastery possessed copies of the bible, and the monks were responsible for copying them. They also read or sang the Divine Office daily, which is composed of the Psalms, and readings from the Old and New Testament. In their daily Mass, they were read in that part of the Mass (Mass of Catechumens) passages from the old and new testament.

oeace
Click to expand...
I have noticed on this forum that whenever Catholics make such a claim; they almost never give verifiable references of any kind.
 
mgrfin said:
Protestant101;2831794:
QUOTE]

Are you insinuating that the Catholic Enclyclopedia is not a reputable source?

The other source for allowing this polygamy mention in this thread is:

Luther Said: Polygamy Is Permissible
“I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.” (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)

As for other issues, we have Luther’s own writing, at least those which are readily available.

If you want evidence that he accused Catholicism of teaching that we get to heaven by good works, and by our own efforts, check out Luther’s Commentary on Galatians (Google it).

Henry Denifle did a scholarly work on Luther, proving that Luther never understood “Justification by faith”, because he didn’t under either justification
Click to expand...
or faith as found in St. Paul. There is an anti-catholic site that tries to refute Denifle’s masterful work, but all he does is say it isn’t true. Some defense.

Justification by faith is the foundation of Luther’s religion. On this alone his religion stands or falls.

As for Scriptura Sola, even Luther credits the Catholic Church determining which books are part of the Canon. Even books he despised, he still kept in his Bible, because the one, true Church said they belonged there.

Luther was a prolific writer, yet most of his works, the most notorious are not available. Coneniently not available. Most are just vulgar, obscene rantings.

Luther declares that good works are not necessary for salvation and not required in the Gospels, ref: Table Talk.

Luther said that all work is a sin (Witt. III). “Facts about Luther”, Msgr. O’Hare contains all you don’t want to know about Luther.

101, you know what we as Catholics believe. We don’t know what you believe, other than you disbelieve what the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, our Lord and Master. You prefer to have such person as Luther lead you, or Jesus Christ, as found in the Catholic Church.

peace.

Sept. 11 is the Feast of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

“Credo…in unam sanctam, catholicam, apostolicam Ecclesiam”

Yes; actually, I am suggesting that the CE is lacking in credibility, regarding Protestants, and Protestant beliefs; the CE is very biased and one-sided; and as for the other reference you gave here; I will repeat myself by saying, I don’t think that any Catholics on this board can provide us with reliable references that can be easily verified by the general public. Obscure old references that few have reference to simply does not do the job here.
Click to expand...
 
Protestant101 said:
I have noticed on this forum that whenever Catholics make such a claim; they almost never give verifiable references of any kind.
Click to expand...
reformation.org/saint-martin-luther.pdf

This referenced site is quite laughable. It publishes all the old saws about Martin. Only a child would believe such:
  1. One day he accidentally discovered the Bible in an old dusty attic in the monastery. Nonesense.
(The Rules of the Order required the study of Scripture. Plus there was the public reading by the monks of the Divine Office: Matins, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers and Compline, with its dependence on the Psalms, and the Gospels, and the Epistles.
  1. Luther excelled in Greek. Nonesense. Melancthon excelled in Greek and assisted Luther in this regard.
  2. Luther was forced to take a name change. More nonesense. He chose the name “Augustine”. He was not forced to it. For most religious orders, a name change was similar to the O.T. of God changing the name of his faithful: Abram into Abraham; In the NT, John The Baptist name was commanded thru his father.
  3. Luther was forced to do menial tasks. More nonesense. Hey he was a monk. What religious orders did not reguire physical labor from the members of their Order. Benedictines, Dominicans, etc. were all farmers, or grape (wine) growers.
None of these preposterous claims was upheld by a shred of evidence.

peace.
 
mgrfin,

There is a lot of nonsense on the internet.

Just because you happen on to a Website that criticizes Luther, doesn’t mean the contents are factual.

Since no human being is perfect, all human beings are subject to criticism.

I always say the truth is bad enough - I’m glad people embellish so others won’t believe the bad things that are said about me.👍
 
mgrfin said:
reformation.org/saint-martin-luther.pdf

This referenced site is quite laughable.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It’s a site run by one wacky guy with all sorts of weird ideas and no discernible relationship to any organized church (not to say that he doesn’t belong to one, only that he clearly is speaking for himself and not for Lutherans or any other form of Protestantism–he appears to be a fundamentalist of some sort).

This is your basis for claiming that Lutherans or Protestants in general have canonized Luther?

Please.

Edwin
 
Ginger2 said:
mgrfin,

There is a lot of nonsense on the internet.

Just because you happen on to a Website that criticizes Luther, doesn’t mean the contents are factual.

Since no human being is perfect, all human beings are subject to criticism.

I always say the truth is bad enough - I’m glad people embellish so others won’t believe the bad things that are said about me.👍
Click to expand...
And, just because a Website criticizes Luther it doesn’t mean that the contents are NOT factual.

peace
 
Contarini said:
Edwin
Click to expand...
I don’t remember where I read that Luther was canonized. It certainly was years ago, so not that website.

The website hashes out old Lutheran lies, like that Bible discovery. Then we are asked by legitimate Lutherans to disprove such things as that. Lutherans don’t help us out disproving such lies. We have to go through sources to discover that Luther wasn’t such an expert in Greek, that he didn’t discover the Bible, that he claimed that the monastic life was a waste of time, that every act he did was sinful, and on and on it goes.

As far as it being a ‘fundamentalist’ site, I don’t know. It certainly is anti-Catholic, and just points out the battles we have to go through to arrive at Veritas.

You’re blaming me for the existence of such lies. I had nothing to do with them. Luther is bullet-proof.

peace
 
Protestant101 said:
mgrfin;2831897:
Yes; actually, I am suggesting that the CE is lacking in credibility, regarding Protestants, and Protestant beliefs; the CE is very biased and one-sided; and as for the other reference you gave here; I will repeat myself by saying, I don’t think that any Catholics on this board can provide us with reliable references that can be easily verified by the general public. Obscure old references that few have reference to simply does not do the job here.
Click to expand...
Why don’t you provide us with a credible Protestant site, or a credible Lutheran site that we all can go to for the truth. That way we can get off this CE issue?

peace
Click to expand...
 
Ginger2 said:
Of course. But, I’m not the one posting quotes from questionable sources.
Click to expand...
Questionable sources?

Catholic Enclyclopedia? Nonesense!

Also, you have been invited to post a legtitimate Protestant source, or Lutheran source.

All you seem to do is carp and complain, but post nothing positive. Come on, and give us your choice.

peace
 
Mgrfin,

I was not referring to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I was referring to the Website that said something about Luther finding a Bible in the attic (or something like that.)

It gets tough to keep track of what’s what and who’s who when you talk to more than one person, doesn’t it? 🙂

You can quote the Catholic Encyclopedia all you want to me, honey. All I ask is that you continue to respect what it says when I quote it back to you. :yup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top