New Movie on Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

[LittleSoldier]

So why can you insult whomever you want?

Also I can’t believe your defending a man that broke your church inhalf (he was never reconciled, just a rumor that pops up now and then) while bashing a man that tried to save it…

I just can’t get you folks somedays. You got all this tradition and history yet you want to toss it, along with any that try to defend said tradition and history, right out the window.

Nobody broke the Church in half. The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ (Collosians 1:24). It is Truth. You can’t break Truth in half. All you can do is deny it, but that doesn’t change it. You can break off from it but you can’t break it.

 

[Abenadar]

I just wanted to go back to something RyanML said that I think maybe wasn’t picked up on very much, which was:

In charity, I think we should assume that the archbishop had the best of intentions, even if we disagree with them. One can be wrong and still act in humility and good faith.

This is an excellent point, and one that is mentioned in canon 1323

Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:

4ƒ acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls

We know from his own writings that Abp. Lefebvre had the best of intentions, and moreover was acting by reason of necessity and from grave fear, even if it was only relative.

Thanks, RyanML!

 

[Timothysis]

Methinks the Church before 1960 (as was the Church before 1570 as was the Church before 100 AD) was the Church as Christ founded it. Do you believe post-1960 Church is not the same as Christ founded it?

Did I say that? No.

 

[palmas85]

Sir, all I said was that I remember reading years ago something that may have had a relation to what CW said, not that I agree or disagree; I was trying to further the discussion. If you would refrain from dipping your keyboard in venom then perhaps we could have a discussion that doesn’t dissolve into a “us vs. them” situation.

Seriously, it is because of this kind of **** that is making me come here less and less.

Tim you and I have squared off in the past. I am pretty sure that I know your views on Traditional Catholicism versus post Vatican II Catholicism and yes, there is a difference. Not in the faith itself, although things that would have been roundly condemned years ago quietly exist without much opposition except from the traditional side, but rather in the way that people feel about the faith and it’s relation to other faiths and ideas.

That being said, I stand on my statement. Luther never reconciled with the Church. I believe that the only people who propogate that fiction are those Catholics who feel that it would somehow assist in ecumenical efforts. I have never heard it from any other source, especially from protestants, who would have a fit over it, and I have never seen a shred of evidence to support it. None at all.

Luther left a particularly large volume of writing behind him, a lot of which many of us have actually read. His views on the Catholic faith, the Papacy, the institutional faith and the Sacraments are very well known by anyone who has taken the time to actually research his life and not merely repeat what someone said.

In a forum like this you know that anonymous references such as yours and his will come under intense scrutiny. That is because those of us who have traditional leanings have seen just how much damage can come about from such statements. It is one of the reasons for the wholescale destruction of many aspects of the faith that took place after Vatican II. Someone said something, no one questioned it and it took on a life of its own. And that happened a lot of times.

So don’t take it personally Tim. Use it as a learning experience. Sometimes us older folks actually know a thing or two about that which we speak. Maybe just maybe, we have actually researched some of these things that get thrown up from time to time. Just like this Luther fiction.

Maybe you and Betts should do the same

 

[NeelyAnn]

All I am assuming about Luther is the possibility that he did indeed receive last rights. All I am assuming about the other schismatic is that no matter what you say about his “humility” his actions prove otherwise. Were he truly humble, he would have accepted ecclesial authority, and done things in a proper fashion.

Did Luther Recant on His Deathbed?

I was digging through some of my computer files the other day, and I found an old discussion from the Catholic Answers boards. The question asked was as follows:

“I have heard from several people within the last couple of years that Luther died a Catholic and was administered last rites. I had never heard of this before. Is there a historical basis for either of the assertions??? Thanks and God Bless.”

And likewise:

“I read somewhere (though I don’t know if the source was accurate) that he asked for last rites. But there is the fact that he was excommunicated at the time, so he would have been unable to receive the sacraments. If this is true though, it’s pretty funny because Lutherans and other Protestants only have two sacraments, and last rites is not one of them.”

A dramatic deathbed change of heart is emotionally compelling. I myself had a close family member (my brother) who actually may have accepted Christ in his dying moments. I won’t know this side of eternity whether or not that change of heart really occurred. Imagine what a Luther-change-of-heart-on-his-deathbed would mean to Catholic apologetics! If Luther was administered last rights, he was admitting that works were necessary: that is, Christ’s righteousness is not imputed to a sinner. Rather, Luther would be admitting that one must literally become holy, in order for God to view a person as holy. The sacrament of last rights would take away mortal sin. One is therefore not saved by faith alone, but by faith and the process of becoming sanctified.

Well, it isn’t true. Luther’s friend Philip Melanchthon recorded this final prayer uttered by Luther:

“My Heavenly Father, eternal Compassionate God, you have revealed to me your beloved Son our LORD Jesus Christ whom I have known, of whom I have acquaintance, whom I love, and whom I honor as my beloved Savior and Redeemer, whom the Godless persecute, dissipate, and reproach. Take my Soul to you. This he said three times: 'Into your hands I commend my Spirit, you have redeemed me God of truth. And God so loved the world…”

Luther’s friend Justus Jonas also recorded this prayer, but added a bit more to it: Luther made one last jab at the Pope, and those enslaved to the papacy. A contemporary and enemy of Luther, the Roman Catholic polemicist, Cochlaeus, commented on Luther’s last prayer as recorded by Jonas. Cochlaeus lamented:

“…[W]hat shall we say of Luther’s last prayer… ‘Oh my Heavenly Father’ (he says) ‘God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, God of all consolation, I give thanks to You, because You have revealed Your beloved Son Jesus Christ to me, in Whom I believe, Whom I have preached and have confessed, Whom I have loved and praised; Whom the abominable Pope and all impious people revile, persecute, and blaspheme, etc.’ Here let Jonas inquire of all corners of the Councils, to see whether he shall be able to find in the writings of any Christian a dying man’s prayer of this sort, in which anyone at all thus boasts of himself, thus in comparison to himself condemns and accuses all those who, under the Pope, have worshiped Christ, thus attacks and slanders the Shepherd of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff.

Or is it not rather to be believed, that soon after these words of Luther’s Christ the Judge said to Luther’s soul, just now snatched from his body in death itself, 'From your own mouth I judge you, you wicked servant - since you yourself earlier both said and wrote that you heard Christ’s voice in the Pope, Who was speaking and governing in him? Moreover, let that man be anathema and cursed, who speaks against the truth of the Apostolic privileges. Moreover, I aver that there are more good Christians under the Pope - nay, rather, every good Christian; and that under the Pope is the true Christianity, and what is more, the true kernel of Christianity. Therefore, what hope of salvation can a man so hardened possibly have, and one who persists, to the very end, against charity, in his heresy, schism, and rebellion, and in his everlasting hatred against the Pope, and so breathes out his stubborn and obstinate soul? For not only does the judgment of Christ and of Paul, Cyprian, Augustine, and others like them, attested many times over, judge him, but also his own speech and the judgment of his own mouth. Therefore, Jonas stupidly and impiously praises him for this prayer.” [Source: Luther Lives: Two Contemporary Accounts of Martin Luther (New York: Manchester University Press, 2002), 348-349].

…

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/01/did-luther-recant-on-his-deathbed.html

See also:

Luther’s Deathbed Re-Conversion to the Roman Catholic Church

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/06/luthers-deathbed-re-conversion-to-roman.html

From New Advent:

Martin Luther

newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm

No mention of recanting here. No mention of Last Rites either.

 

[srp643]

As unfair as it is, it is actually a bit more complicated. The Pope did not actually excommunicate them. A bishop or Pope may excommunicate if a person breaks a canon law whose punishment is excommunication. A bishop cannot say, for instance, you molested a child so I excommunicate you. The Pope declared that they had incurred the penalty of automatic excommunication based on the particular canon violated.

So, theoretically, any bishop, priest, or layman who breaks a canon of this stature does theoretically incur excommunication, whether he or she is called out on it or not. A good contemporary example would be the situation in China where the Patriotic Catholic Church regularly consecrates bishops without papal mandate. Here, the Vatican chooses to remain silent for political reason. I don’t necessarily disagree that what the vatican is doing in this case is unwise - but you can see how canon law can be used as a political tool as needs be.

gTO - thanks for the technicality. My statement still stands about Lefebvre ostensibly being subjected to some different set of rules than other bishops and cardinals. I haven’t seen any other ranking clergyman vilified and maligned like he has been, even though many have done far worse things. The question is, why?

 

[CWBetts]

Did Luther Recant on His Deathbed?

I was digging through some of my computer files the other day, and I found an old discussion from the Catholic Answers boards. The question asked was as follows:

“I have heard from several people within the last couple of years that Luther died a Catholic and was administered last rites. I had never heard of this before. Is there a historical basis for either of the assertions??? Thanks and God Bless.”

And likewise:

“I read somewhere (though I don’t know if the source was accurate) that he asked for last rites. But there is the fact that he was excommunicated at the time, so he would have been unable to receive the sacraments. If this is true though, it’s pretty funny because Lutherans and other Protestants only have two sacraments, and last rites is not one of them.”

A dramatic deathbed change of heart is emotionally compelling. I myself had a close family member (my brother) who actually may have accepted Christ in his dying moments. I won’t know this side of eternity whether or not that change of heart really occurred. Imagine what a Luther-change-of-heart-on-his-deathbed would mean to Catholic apologetics! If Luther was administered last rights, he was admitting that works were necessary: that is, Christ’s righteousness is not imputed to a sinner. Rather, Luther would be admitting that one must literally become holy, in order for God to view a person as holy. The sacrament of last rights would take away mortal sin. One is therefore not saved by faith alone, but by faith and the process of becoming sanctified.

Well, it isn’t true. Luther’s friend Philip Melanchthon recorded this final prayer uttered by Luther:

“My Heavenly Father, eternal Compassionate God, you have revealed to me your beloved Son our LORD Jesus Christ whom I have known, of whom I have acquaintance, whom I love, and whom I honor as my beloved Savior and Redeemer, whom the Godless persecute, dissipate, and reproach. Take my Soul to you. This he said three times: 'Into your hands I commend my Spirit, you have redeemed me God of truth. And God so loved the world…”

Luther’s friend Justus Jonas also recorded this prayer, but added a bit more to it: Luther made one last jab at the Pope, and those enslaved to the papacy. A contemporary and enemy of Luther, the Roman Catholic polemicist, Cochlaeus, commented on Luther’s last prayer as recorded by Jonas. Cochlaeus lamented:

“…[W]hat shall we say of Luther’s last prayer… ‘Oh my Heavenly Father’ (he says) ‘God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, God of all consolation, I give thanks to You, because You have revealed Your beloved Son Jesus Christ to me, in Whom I believe, Whom I have preached and have confessed, Whom I have loved and praised; Whom the abominable Pope and all impious people revile, persecute, and blaspheme, etc.’ Here let Jonas inquire of all corners of the Councils, to see whether he shall be able to find in the writings of any Christian a dying man’s prayer of this sort, in which anyone at all thus boasts of himself, thus in comparison to himself condemns and accuses all those who, under the Pope, have worshiped Christ, thus attacks and slanders the Shepherd of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff.

Or is it not rather to be believed, that soon after these words of Luther’s Christ the Judge said to Luther’s soul, just now snatched from his body in death itself, 'From your own mouth I judge you, you wicked servant - since you yourself earlier both said and wrote that you heard Christ’s voice in the Pope, Who was speaking and governing in him? Moreover, let that man be anathema and cursed, who speaks against the truth of the Apostolic privileges. Moreover, I aver that there are more good Christians under the Pope - nay, rather, every good Christian; and that under the Pope is the true Christianity, and what is more, the true kernel of Christianity. Therefore, what hope of salvation can a man so hardened possibly have, and one who persists, to the very end, against charity, in his heresy, schism, and rebellion, and in his everlasting hatred against the Pope, and so breathes out his stubborn and obstinate soul? For not only does the judgment of Christ and of Paul, Cyprian, Augustine, and others like them, attested many times over, judge him, but also his own speech and the judgment of his own mouth. Therefore, Jonas stupidly and impiously praises him for this prayer.” [Source: Luther Lives: Two Contemporary Accounts of Martin Luther (New York: Manchester University Press, 2002), 348-349].

…

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/01/did-luther-recant-on-his-deathbed.html

See also:

Luther’s Deathbed Re-Conversion to the Roman Catholic Church

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/06/luthers-deathbed-re-conversion-to-roman.html

From New Advent:

Martin Luther

newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm

No mention of recanting here. No mention of Last Rites either.

An argument from silence is no argument at all. Stop being so impatient and give me a little time. I have more things to do with my time than live on these boards.

 

[palmas85]

An argument from silence is no argument at all. Stop being so impatient and give me a little time. I have more things to do with my time than live on these boards.

Perhaps then you should not post clearly inflammatory comments without first verifying their accuracy. Then you wouldn’t have to worry so much about finding proof.

 

[KC91]

It may surprise you to know that those horrible schismatics, the SSPX:bigyikes: have a photograph of the Holy Father prominently displayed in all of their Chapels, and always have had by the way.

Not being anti-SSPX here but when I visited the Eglise Saint Nicholas du Chardonnet which is the Paris mother church HQ of the SSPX I saw no portrait of B16.

 

[Onegin]

Not being anti-SSPX here but when I visited the Eglise Saint Nicholas du Chardonnet which is the Paris mother church HQ of the SSPX I saw no portrait of B16.

Chances are they had a Papal flag prominently displayed somewhere though.

 

[KC91]

No, although they had 2 nice portraits of Pius V and Pius X

 

[NeelyAnn]

Not being anti-SSPX here but when I visited the Eglise Saint Nicholas du Chardonnet which is the Paris mother church HQ of the SSPX I saw no portrait of B16.

All of the SSPX Chapela I have been in here in the states do have a pic of BXVI.

 

[KC91]

Well maybe there is a difference between the American SSPX and the French SSPX since the SSPX face more hostility from the French Bishops

 

[ProVobis]

Not being anti-SSPX here but when I visited the Eglise Saint Nicholas du Chardonnet which is the Paris mother church HQ of the SSPX I saw no portrait of B16.

Like there’s a portrait of B16 in full view at every diocesan parish?

 

[giuseppeTO]

Well maybe there is a difference between the American SSPX and the French SSPX since the SSPX face more hostility from the French Bishops

Some SSPX chapels, Like St. Michael’s on Long island and Blessed Virgin in Syracuse have the pope’s picture in the Church Hall/Auditorium and/or in the bookstore.

 

[Timothysis]

Tim you and I have squared off in the past. I am pretty sure that I know your views on Traditional Catholicism versus post Vatican II Catholicism and yes, there is a difference. Not in the faith itself, although things that would have been roundly condemned years ago quietly exist without much opposition except from the traditional side, but rather in the way that people feel about the faith and it’s relation to other faiths and ideas.

That being said, I stand on my statement. Luther never reconciled with the Church. I believe that the only people who propogate that fiction are those Catholics who feel that it would somehow assist in ecumenical efforts. I have never heard it from any other source, especially from protestants, who would have a fit over it, and I have never seen a shred of evidence to support it. None at all.

Luther left a particularly large volume of writing behind him, a lot of which many of us have actually read. His views on the Catholic faith, the Papacy, the institutional faith and the Sacraments are very well known by anyone who has taken the time to actually research his life and not merely repeat what someone said.

In a forum like this you know that anonymous references such as yours and his will come under intense scrutiny. That is because those of us who have traditional leanings have seen just how much damage can come about from such statements. It is one of the reasons for the wholescale destruction of many aspects of the faith that took place after Vatican II. Someone said something, no one questioned it and it took on a life of its own. And that happened a lot of times.

So don’t take it personally Tim. Use it as a learning experience. Sometimes us older folks actually know a thing or two about that which we speak. Maybe just maybe, we have actually researched some of these things that get thrown up from time to time. Just like this Luther fiction.

Maybe you and Betts should do the same

*"While I don’t exactly remember the details, I do remember reading that Luther, towards the end of his life, supposedly said that he wished everyone would forget everything he wrote and practice the faith in the same ways as the early Church.

Perhaps this is part of what CWBetts is referring. "*

You take the cake. Nowhere did I ever say that I believed that Martin Luther was reconciled to the Church before he died. Nowhere. So, use THAT as a learning experience instead of accusing people of total falsehoods. The way you extrapolate my supposed reconciliation of Luther with the attempt to foster “ecumenical efforts” is a perfect example of the mindset of the “traditionalists” Catholics here who think that they are better Catholics than the rest of us. So, “*don’t take it personally,” * but while you have “researched” things like “this Luther fiction” perhaps you can take the time to respond to a post without accusing someone of saying or implying things that they never advocated…a crazy idea, I know, but just try.

 

[palmas85]

*"While I don’t exactly remember the details, I do remember reading that Luther, towards the end of his life, supposedly said that he wished everyone would forget everything he wrote and practice the faith in the same ways as the early Church.

Perhaps this is part of what CWBetts is referring. "*

You take the cake. Nowhere did I ever say that I believed that Martin Luther was reconciled to the Church before he died. Nowhere. So, use THAT as a learning experience instead of accusing people of total falsehoods. The way you extrapolate my supposed reconciliation of Luther with the attempt to foster “ecumenical efforts” is a perfect example of the mindset of the “traditionalists” Catholics here who think that they are better Catholics than the rest of us. So, “*don’t take it personally,” * but while you have “researched” things like “this Luther fiction” perhaps you can take the time to respond to a post without accusing someone of saying or implying things that they never advocated…a crazy idea, I know, but just try.

OK Tim, where do you remember reading this? Give us a citation. If you don’t remember where you read it then say so, don’t just say somewhere. It looks as though you are rushing in to defend a fellow progressive who got caught with his pants down thats all. And had you taken the time to read what Betts had said you would know he never read what he claimed at all, he was merely stating as a fact something someone else told him.

And Tim it is not extrapolation at all. Why else would someone create such a story? Particularly one that could be debunked so easily. You tell me. The only times I have ever heard these rumors is when good intentioned folks, I guess, bring it up in an attempt to show that Luther never wanted to really change the Church that much. He just wanted a few reforms here and there and he died a good Catholic and hey, he just may be a saint someday. I have actually heard instructors in RCIA throw that garbage out and the Catechumans, who didn’t know any better just lapped it up and believed it until presented with the hard cold facts. And remember Tim, the only persons on this forum even saying such a thing might have, maybe or supposedly could have happened is you and him.

Oh and Tim, one of the last things Luther ever did was viciously attack the Catholic Church and the Papacy, just as he had done for many many years,. And that my friend is an established fact Hey if you want to defend someone go ahead. But please Tim be on at least somewhat solid ground when you do so.

 

[LittleSoldier]

If you are interested in the mind of Archbishop Lefebvre and the history behind the SSPX, reading the following items below will give you a good idea of what he was thinking. Reading his own words is truly the best way to form an opinion for or against him. Below are books/articles/sermons from the Archbishop himself.

You can read part of the book *An open letter to confused Catholics * by Marcel Lefèbvre online here:

books.google.com/books?id=jgsl1kHs-kUC&dq=archbishop+lefebvre+books+online&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=jyxeS5yuEdCf8Aavwej5BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CCkQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

You can read ‘THE 1974 DECLARATION OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE’
made at Econe, Switzerland on November 21, 1974, here:

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_I._declaration.htm

You can read the ‘JUBILEE SERMON’ of Archbishop Lefebvre on the occasion of his sacerdotal jubilee, September 23, 1979, here:

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_iv_sermon.htm

You can read ‘THE ROLE OF THE PRIESTLY SSPX IN THE HEART OF THE CHURCH’, given in 1981, here:

sspx.org/miscellaneous/role_of_sspx_in_heart-church.htm

You can read Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s ‘JUNE 1988 PUBLIC STATEMENT Against False Ecumenism’ (written in 1983, made public in 1988), here:

sspx.org/miscellaneous/public_statement_ab_lefebvre_june_1988.htm

You can read ‘CAN OBEDIENCE OBLIGE US TO DISOBEY?’, a statement of Archbishop Lefebvre, here:

sspx.org/miscellaneous/can_obedience_oblige_us_to_disobey.htm

You can read the ‘1988 CONSECRATION SERMON’, by Archbishop Lefebvre, here:

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_v_1988_consecration_sermon.htm

You can read ‘ONE YEAR AFTER THE CONSECRATIONS’, an interview with Archbishop Lefebvre,’ here:

sspx.org/miscellaneous/one_year_after_the_consecrations.htm

You can read ‘TWO YEARS AFTER
THE CONSECRATIONS: WE MUST NOT WAVER, WE MAY NOT COMPROMISE’, Archbishop Lefebvre’s address to his priests given in Econe, Switzerland on September 6, 1990, here:

sspx.org/miscellaneous/two_years_after_the_consecrations.htm

A lot of resources here. These resources are in chronological order (as much as they can be). They are all from the words of the Archbishop and are representative of the events as they unfolded. They are not a historical recount from a third party. This is his side. No better way to find out his side of the story than by getting it from him. One last book I would recommend is They Have Uncrowned Him, written by the Archbishop. Hope this helps.

Thank you very much - I will check these out. I appreciate any help you can give me. Perhaps you can answer another question I have. I have never seen such hatred in a thread before and normally I debate on the abortion threads. I have had ad hominem attacks thrown at me from left and right, told to go, uh, you know, etc. But I have never seen so much anger and hatred here, Catholic against Catholic, child of God against child of God. What is it about this particular subject that brings out such strong negative feelings??

 

[LittleSoldier]

A few more resources on Archbishop Lefebvre. As I said earlier, if you want to know what he thought and his frame of mind and the kind of person he was - get it from him and then make your own decisions of what you think. I currently attend Mass at a Diocesan Church TLM. I have the option of attending an SSPX Chapel that is the same driving distance but I opt for my current parish instead. That being said, I have attended Mass at SSPX Chapel’s in the past ( and have no problems doing so again). I do not consider myself an ‘SSPX-er’, but I do try to be fair and balanced. That requires being informed.

From Youtube:

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Speaks -1 of 4 (An Address Given by His Grace - Nov.1975 )
youtube.com/watch?v=5nmjBM5QzEw&feature=related

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Speaks -2 of 4
youtube.com/watch?v=gukgvRa7azk&feature=related

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Speaks -3 of 4
youtube.com/watch?v=bWe0KXVbJqo&feature=related

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Speaks-Part 4 of 4
youtube.com/watch?v=ugjOJqNIWS8&feature=related

Traditional Catholic bishops consecrated at Ecône in 1988
youtube.com/watch?v=gAr0psfJGeg

Archbishop Marcel-François Lefebvre (Press conference 1989)
youtube.com/watch?v=yVt0dnwZMCo

Thank you again!! I will check these out, also. Thank you for helping me!!

 

[Timothysis]

OK Tim, where do you remember reading this? Give us a citation. If you don’t remember where you read it then say so, don’t just say somewhere. It looks as though you are rushing in to defend a fellow progressive who got caught with his pants down thats all. And had you taken the time to read what Betts had said you would know he never read what he claimed at all, he was merely stating as a fact something someone else told him.

And Tim it is not extrapolation at all. Why else would someone create such a story? Particularly one that could be debunked so easily. You tell me. The only times I have ever heard these rumors is when good intentioned folks, I guess, bring it up in an attempt to show that Luther never wanted to really change the Church that much. He just wanted a few reforms here and there and he died a good Catholic and hey, he just may be a saint someday. I have actually heard instructors in RCIA throw that garbage out and the Catechumans, who didn’t know any better just lapped it up and believed it until presented with the hard cold facts. And remember Tim, the only persons on this forum even saying such a thing might have, maybe or supposedly could have happened is you and him.

Oh and Tim, one of the last things Luther ever did was viciously attack the Catholic Church and the Papacy, just as he had done for many many years,. And that my friend is an established fact Hey if you want to defend someone go ahead. But please Tim be on at least somewhat solid ground when you do so.

I must say that you are an incredible person. You have the tenacity of a pitbull that has latched on to a victim and refuse to let go no matter how disgusting you get.

Not that I have anything to prove to you, I watched a tv show called Testament by John Romer probably 20 years ago. I remember him saying something to the effect of what I quoted from my post. If it matters so much to YOU, then go rent the series and see it for yourself . Incredibly, you still attack me for something THAT I DID NOT EVEN SAY. Instead of “rushing in to defend a fellow progressive” I was simply trying to further the argument.

But to be totally honest, I could really care less what you think. Instead of lecturing me on Martin Luther, a subject I am all familiar with, perhaps you can take a bit of time to contemplate the uncharitable attitude it is to attack someone for things they did not say nor things they did not insinuate. Is this a virtue of a “traditional” Catholic?

Show me where I said that Luther was reconciled to the Church before he died and I’ll eat my hat.

Otherwise, be an adult and a man and admit that you were wrong.