A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
I disagree.
- Status
S
SPH1
Guest
From your first link:
Give me a break! The entire history of Luther and Protestantism is ad hominem attacks and propaganda against the Catholic Church. From Cardinal Newman:
Role of False Witness - From Newman Reader
“I repeat, not everything which is said to our disadvantage is without foundation in fact; but it is not {129} the true that tells against us in the controversy, but the false. The Tradition requires bold painting; its prominent outline, its glaring colouring, needs to be a falsehood. So was it at the time of the Reformation; the multitude would never have been converted by exact reasoning and by facts which could be proved; so its upholders were clever enough to call the Pope Antichrist, and they let the startling accusation sink into men’s minds. Nothing else would have succeeded; and they pursue the same tactics now. No inferior charge, I say, would have gained for them the battle; else, why should they have had recourse to it? Few persons tell atrocious falsehoods for the sake of telling them. If truth had been sufficient to put down Catholicism, the Reformers would not have had recourse to fiction. Errors indeed creep in by chance, whatever be the point of inquiry or dispute; but I am not accusing Protestants merely of incidental or of attendant error, but I mean that falsehood is the very staple of the views which they have been taught to entertain of us.**”
John Henry Cardinal Newman
L
levi86
Guest
All of which did not exist until Martin Luther invented them. That’s not Catholic rhetoric, that’s historical fact. If, Of course, you have any historical evidence to the contrary I would be more than happy to look at it: but then again, you guys aren’t too big on history are you.
Read ahead three verses
He may. He may have views on the Iraq war, he may have views on the Austro-US Alliance, he may have views regarding the future of the EU, these are political views. The belief that an entire people is of Satan, that every individual within that group is less than human and they should be exterminated like vermin is not a political view, it is a moral (religious) view
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
An ad hominem attack is an attack against the person rather than a criticism of what the person says or does.
Thusfar, the history offered on Luther has been on what he actually said and what he actually did.
People may want to cherrypick what he actually said and what he actually did because they may be embarrassed about his teachings against Jews; his verbal violence; his condonation of forced conversions, land theft, and bloodshed; his political ambitions; his severe scrupulosity; and so on.
But that doesn’t make history an ad hominem attack on Luther. It should have made history a lesson. For Hitler, history certainly was a lesson. For others, they would prefer to rewrite history so that the rest of us are doomed to repeat it.
Thusfar, the history offered on Luther has been on what he actually said and what he actually did.
People may want to cherrypick what he actually said and what he actually did because they may be embarrassed about his teachings against Jews; his verbal violence; his condonation of forced conversions, land theft, and bloodshed; his political ambitions; his severe scrupulosity; and so on.
But that doesn’t make history an ad hominem attack on Luther. It should have made history a lesson. For Hitler, history certainly was a lesson. For others, they would prefer to rewrite history so that the rest of us are doomed to repeat it.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
A question for our Lutheran friends:
Do modern Lutherans embrace the entirety of Luther’s thought and writings without apology or are there some doctrines (and diatribes) that you now distance yourself from?
If the latter, what are these and why do you disavow them today?
Thanks in advance.
Do modern Lutherans embrace the entirety of Luther’s thought and writings without apology or are there some doctrines (and diatribes) that you now distance yourself from?
If the latter, what are these and why do you disavow them today?
Thanks in advance.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Heretics frequently quote scripture…they just misunderstand what the scriptures actually mean.No
All of them.
None of them, as they were all based on scripture.
Your own misunderstanding of John 6 is an example of this misunderstanding.
Peter warned that people twist scriptures scriptures to their own destruction:
“[Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16)
Still, we tend to give ourselves the benefit of the doubt, don’t we? Surely, Peter could not have been referring to us? Well, consider this: do you think any of the people Peter was referring to ever said to themselves, “Hey, I’m ignorant and unstable. I think I’ll twist the scriptures to my own destruction”? No! These people were ignorant of the true meaning of scripture, but they didn’t realize it. They were ignorant of the fact that they were ignorant!
However, they were not ignorant of the words of scripture – what it says – they were just ignorant of what it really means. The truth is they thought they had the most accurate interpretation of scripture – that’s why they were distorting and twisting it to their own destruction. They didn’t need anyone to tell them what Paul’s letters or other scriptures really meant – they were sure they already knew because they thought they could interpret scripture for themselves!
This ought to cause some serious reflection among some people in our own day and age.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Quotes from Martin Luther
On Doctrinal Divisions - the “Fruit” of Sola Scriptura
“This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament [Real Presence], another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet.” (De Wette III, 61. quoted in O’Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.)
“Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers.” (Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O’Hare, Ibid, 209.)
On Receiving the Bible from the Catholic Church
“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists [Catholics]–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.” (Commentary on St. John, ch. 16)
On adding the word “alone” to the Bible
“You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word “alone” is not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text” (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).
On Killing Catholic Bishops
“It were better that every bishop were murdered, every [monastery or convent] rooted out, that one soul should be destroyed … But if they will not hear God’s Word, but rage and rave with bannings and burnings, killings and every evil, what do they better deserve than a strong uprising which will sweep them from the earth? And we would smile did it happen. … All who contribute body, goods and honor that the rule of the bishops may be destroyed are God’s dear children and true Christians.” (from Against the Falsely Called Spiritual Order of the Pope and the Bishops)
On Dealing with the Jews
“Know, O adored Christ, and make no mistake, that aside from the Devil, you have no enemy more venomous, more desperate, more bitter, than a true Jew … let their synagogues be burned, their books confiscated, that they be forbidden to pray to God in their own way, and that they be made to work with their hands, or, better still, that the princes expel them from their lands, and that the authorities – magistrates as well as clergy – unite toward these ends.” (from Against the Jews and Their Lies)
On Doctrinal Divisions - the “Fruit” of Sola Scriptura
“This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament [Real Presence], another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet.” (De Wette III, 61. quoted in O’Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.)
“Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers.” (Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O’Hare, Ibid, 209.)
On Receiving the Bible from the Catholic Church
“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists [Catholics]–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.” (Commentary on St. John, ch. 16)
On adding the word “alone” to the Bible
“You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word “alone” is not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text” (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).
On Killing Catholic Bishops
“It were better that every bishop were murdered, every [monastery or convent] rooted out, that one soul should be destroyed … But if they will not hear God’s Word, but rage and rave with bannings and burnings, killings and every evil, what do they better deserve than a strong uprising which will sweep them from the earth? And we would smile did it happen. … All who contribute body, goods and honor that the rule of the bishops may be destroyed are God’s dear children and true Christians.” (from Against the Falsely Called Spiritual Order of the Pope and the Bishops)
On Dealing with the Jews
“Know, O adored Christ, and make no mistake, that aside from the Devil, you have no enemy more venomous, more desperate, more bitter, than a true Jew … let their synagogues be burned, their books confiscated, that they be forbidden to pray to God in their own way, and that they be made to work with their hands, or, better still, that the princes expel them from their lands, and that the authorities – magistrates as well as clergy – unite toward these ends.” (from Against the Jews and Their Lies)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
**More Quotes from Martin Luther **
On the Immaculate Conception of Mary
Probably the most astonishing Marian belief of Luther is his acceptance of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, which wasn’t even definitively proclaimed as dogma by the Catholic Church until 1854. Concerning this question there is some dispute, over the technical aspects of medieval theories of conception and the soul, and whether or not Luther later changed his mind. Even some eminent Lutheran scholars, however, such as Arthur Carl Piepkorn (1907-73) of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, maintain his unswerving acceptance of the doctrine. Luther’s words follow:
“It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin.” (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” December ?] 1527; from Hartmann Grisar, S.J., *Luther, *authorised translation from the German by E.M. Lamond; edited by Luigi Cappadelta, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, first edition, 1915, Vol. IV [of 6], p. 238; taken from the German Werke, Erlangen, 1826-1868, edited by J.G. Plochmann and J.A. Irmischer, 2nd ed. edited by L. Enders, Frankfurt, 1862 ff., 67 volumes; citation from 152, p. 58)
**“She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin - something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil.” **(Personal {“Little”} Prayer Book, 1522)
Later references to the Immaculate Conception appear in his House sermon for Christmas (1533) and *Against the Papacy of Rome *(1545).
On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”
“Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him…I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”
“A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ…”
“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity…When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her…This babble…is without justification…he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.”
On the Assumption of Mary
In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time he preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:
“There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.”
On the Immaculate Conception of Mary
Probably the most astonishing Marian belief of Luther is his acceptance of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, which wasn’t even definitively proclaimed as dogma by the Catholic Church until 1854. Concerning this question there is some dispute, over the technical aspects of medieval theories of conception and the soul, and whether or not Luther later changed his mind. Even some eminent Lutheran scholars, however, such as Arthur Carl Piepkorn (1907-73) of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, maintain his unswerving acceptance of the doctrine. Luther’s words follow:
“It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin.” (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” December ?] 1527; from Hartmann Grisar, S.J., *Luther, *authorised translation from the German by E.M. Lamond; edited by Luigi Cappadelta, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, first edition, 1915, Vol. IV [of 6], p. 238; taken from the German Werke, Erlangen, 1826-1868, edited by J.G. Plochmann and J.A. Irmischer, 2nd ed. edited by L. Enders, Frankfurt, 1862 ff., 67 volumes; citation from 152, p. 58)
**“She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin - something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil.” **(Personal {“Little”} Prayer Book, 1522)
Later references to the Immaculate Conception appear in his House sermon for Christmas (1533) and *Against the Papacy of Rome *(1545).
On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”
“Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him…I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”
“A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ…”
“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity…When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her…This babble…is without justification…he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.”
On the Assumption of Mary
In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time he preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:
“There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.”
6
6glargento
Guest
Luther’s personal character should call into question his credibility, if protestants alive today would see what luther was like, they might not be as quick to follow his teachings.
Sure one could try to say the same about some of the bad popes in history but the BIG difference is that those “bad popes” did not start the catholic church, but luther did start the lutheran church and the protestant reformation.
N
nerfherder
Guest
So? Does this point matter in the least?
Is it not more important to focus on those many things that make Christian denominations so very alike, rather than concentrating on those few that separate us?
I posted before that no institution or human is perfect - whether Pope or Luther, Cardinal Richelieu or the persecutors of the Salem ‘witches’. And that is not the question being asked here.
There were some really interesting issues raised in #1 which would take us away from murder with intent and antisemitism.
Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.
R
rr1213
Guest
I challenge Catholics to actually READ the 95 Theses as opposed to simply opposing them in a knee-jerk manner. If you read them you will find that the vast majority are statements which you can, with good conscience, agree. That is because at this stage of Luther’s career he was focusing on the abuses of the indulgence system as opposed to more fundamental differences that he opposed later. Heck, the 95 Theses does not even condemn the concept of indulgencies per se but, instead, is based on the assumption that they can be done correctly.
R
rr1213
Guest
Yeah, let’s just see what Protestant influences achieved in America…a Constitution which hundreds of years ago guaranteed the rights of minority religions, primarily Catholics and Jews at that time, to worship their faith as they conscience dictates, a Constitution which explicitly forbid religious tests in order to hold Federal Office. A nation which, despite its terrible treatment of Blacks and Native Americans, was nonetheless more free 230 years ago than most Catholic nations were just 70 years ago.
I guarantee you that if Catholics were as predominant in the United States in 1789 as Protestants actually were, this country would not have enacted a Constitution that guarantees religious freedom.
R
rr1213
Guest
If those Popes at the time had been Godly men instead of corrupt and greedy tyrants, then there would likely have been no reason for Luther to start down the road he traveled.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
So Luther has someone to blame for his extraordinarily destructive behaviour?
What? The Devil made him do it?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
That was the Enlightenment not the Reformation. Nice try.
What? History too embarrassing for you? Grasping at straws now? Predictable.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
R
rr1213
Guest
Yes, the corrupt nature of certain Church leaders at the time was, indeed, a contributing factor to the resulting schism, which is even acknowledged by the Church today. See CCC provision cited below (emphasis added):So Luther has someone to blame for his extraordinarily destructive behaviour?
817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers."
- Status