J
JoeT777
Guest
All:
I’ve always held that you can discern whether the outcome of events in history was good or bad or evil. With Catholic faith and morals, it’s easy enough – but what happens when you set aside those morals and ethics, that is make them relative to the subjective mind. If we shine the light of right reasoning in faith we see every man throws a shadow. We can measure Luther by the shadow thrown against the pages of history. Can we rely solely on faith alone to discern good and evil?
Let me interject a caution before I get accused of being a hypocritical holy-Joe. Discerning evil is a far cry different from avoiding sin – you might say it’s the difference between seeing the on-coming car (sin) and being able to get out of the way (sinning). While you can see the car coming, you may not always move far enough or fast enough – before you know it you wake up in the aid station, Catholics might call the confessional, or in the morgue.
In any event, over the years I’ve run across material regarding Luther, what always came from the Protestant, i.e. schismatic, had good nuances; what came from the Catholics was anecdotal, a bit strange, just short of gossip. It’s as if these antecedents would be told while looking over the shoulder just like gossip, or so as not to hurt somebody’s sensibilities. In retrospect, this seems to be exactly what Catholics do, probably out of respect to the Protestants. Either way, I just never thought much about it until a few years ago when challenged to give a reasoned response regarding Luther. And as I’ve said in earlier posts, the deeper I dug the more convinced I was that he was simply mad, demented or possessed – maybe all three. Most every Catholic scholar would mention one or several of the less scandalous stories about Luther; of course, probably out of charity; connections to the man’s stability were seldom made. (It seems the tentacles of political correctness are everywhere).
None of the Saints were perfect, so why hold Luther up to scrutiny? (I really don’t believe I said such a stupid thing). Comparatively even though they may have a repudiated past we most always see Saints make a real and lasting change or move to a permanent holiness. Generally speaking, in Luther, we see right the opposite, a move towards immorality. This was the issue with Henry VIII’s bigamy and his devoice; it seems that Luther proposed that bigamy was more expedient than divorce. While it might raise a flag, it’s not too big a deal. What then should we make of the case of bigamy dealing with Phillip of Hesse? Luther reneged on certain assurances given the Pope Leo X, to his Bishop, Bishop Scultetus, and to Emperor Charles. Why? What’s the story behind this? Chivalry hadn’t died in 1500, not yet anyway – some would say that chivalry moved along with a more ‘rationalized’ morality shortly after Luther, where you might say see moral truth becoming a shivaree of mendacity. I’ve mentioned it before, what is the Evangel? Are there grounds to suggest that there is a psychological problem with Luther’s sanity? Luther’s writings are complete with battles with the devil – funny? Take it serious - did he lose the battle with the devil? Luther had a funny outlook on the sacrament of marriage, especially for somebody who was a Catholic priest, who claimed to be a profit (I wonder for whose profit he prognosticates for – the good spirits or the bad guys?)
Even today, whether whispered or plastered across the newspapers, this little bit mentioned alone would ruin any man. I could continue for hours. YET, the Protestant mind just doesn’t seem to understand that there are forces at battle, good and bad forces, and mystical forces; forces we’ve been warned in scripture to test and weigh. Did the Protestant movement pick the wrong side when it decided to follow its wayward befuggled knight? Good ol’ common sense asks how a man can re-define Christianity with this baggage and not be questioned. Now excuse me for asking – it’s something that aught a be asked; would you be inclined to follow Christ if he had been disfigured by a single pimple – yet many fall all over themselves defending this man covered head to toe in carbuncles.
I’m here to tell you Luther was mad as a hatter; he can’t hold up to scrutiny.
JoeT
I’ve always held that you can discern whether the outcome of events in history was good or bad or evil. With Catholic faith and morals, it’s easy enough – but what happens when you set aside those morals and ethics, that is make them relative to the subjective mind. If we shine the light of right reasoning in faith we see every man throws a shadow. We can measure Luther by the shadow thrown against the pages of history. Can we rely solely on faith alone to discern good and evil?
Let me interject a caution before I get accused of being a hypocritical holy-Joe. Discerning evil is a far cry different from avoiding sin – you might say it’s the difference between seeing the on-coming car (sin) and being able to get out of the way (sinning). While you can see the car coming, you may not always move far enough or fast enough – before you know it you wake up in the aid station, Catholics might call the confessional, or in the morgue.
In any event, over the years I’ve run across material regarding Luther, what always came from the Protestant, i.e. schismatic, had good nuances; what came from the Catholics was anecdotal, a bit strange, just short of gossip. It’s as if these antecedents would be told while looking over the shoulder just like gossip, or so as not to hurt somebody’s sensibilities. In retrospect, this seems to be exactly what Catholics do, probably out of respect to the Protestants. Either way, I just never thought much about it until a few years ago when challenged to give a reasoned response regarding Luther. And as I’ve said in earlier posts, the deeper I dug the more convinced I was that he was simply mad, demented or possessed – maybe all three. Most every Catholic scholar would mention one or several of the less scandalous stories about Luther; of course, probably out of charity; connections to the man’s stability were seldom made. (It seems the tentacles of political correctness are everywhere).
None of the Saints were perfect, so why hold Luther up to scrutiny? (I really don’t believe I said such a stupid thing). Comparatively even though they may have a repudiated past we most always see Saints make a real and lasting change or move to a permanent holiness. Generally speaking, in Luther, we see right the opposite, a move towards immorality. This was the issue with Henry VIII’s bigamy and his devoice; it seems that Luther proposed that bigamy was more expedient than divorce. While it might raise a flag, it’s not too big a deal. What then should we make of the case of bigamy dealing with Phillip of Hesse? Luther reneged on certain assurances given the Pope Leo X, to his Bishop, Bishop Scultetus, and to Emperor Charles. Why? What’s the story behind this? Chivalry hadn’t died in 1500, not yet anyway – some would say that chivalry moved along with a more ‘rationalized’ morality shortly after Luther, where you might say see moral truth becoming a shivaree of mendacity. I’ve mentioned it before, what is the Evangel? Are there grounds to suggest that there is a psychological problem with Luther’s sanity? Luther’s writings are complete with battles with the devil – funny? Take it serious - did he lose the battle with the devil? Luther had a funny outlook on the sacrament of marriage, especially for somebody who was a Catholic priest, who claimed to be a profit (I wonder for whose profit he prognosticates for – the good spirits or the bad guys?)
Even today, whether whispered or plastered across the newspapers, this little bit mentioned alone would ruin any man. I could continue for hours. YET, the Protestant mind just doesn’t seem to understand that there are forces at battle, good and bad forces, and mystical forces; forces we’ve been warned in scripture to test and weigh. Did the Protestant movement pick the wrong side when it decided to follow its wayward befuggled knight? Good ol’ common sense asks how a man can re-define Christianity with this baggage and not be questioned. Now excuse me for asking – it’s something that aught a be asked; would you be inclined to follow Christ if he had been disfigured by a single pimple – yet many fall all over themselves defending this man covered head to toe in carbuncles.
I’m here to tell you Luther was mad as a hatter; he can’t hold up to scrutiny.
JoeT