Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[reteeks21]

I am pretty new at this and am not totally familiar with a lot of the history. But I would guess that your claims above were possibly commited by Catholics, but not condoned by the Catholic Church.

That is absolutely correct. That was exactly the point I was making for prots and caths.

 

[Rainman2]

That is absolutely correct. That was exactly the point I was making for prots and caths.

But isn’t there a difference? The sins and atrocities committed by Luther were done by Luther himself and therefore condoned by the Lutheran church, since it is his church, he is the Lutheran church. Where as the founder of the Catholic Church, Jesus, did not commit any such sins, and as you agreed, the Catholic Church most likely did not condone any of the atrocious acts committed by Catholics.

 

[reteeks21]

But isn’t there a difference? The sins and atrocities committed by Luther were done by Luther himself and therefore condoned by the Lutheran church, since it is his church, he is the Lutheran church. Where as the founder of the Catholic Church, Jesus, did not commit any such sins, and as you agreed, the Catholic Church most likely did not condone any of the atrocious acts committed by Catholics.

So all Catholics condoned the idea that killing Muslims was the path to heaven like the pope at that time said? And who controlled the Papal States? If the pope didn’t like Jews forced into ghettos during those times why did he not stop it? How about the idea started by the catholic saint I mentioned earlier that Jews are Christ-killers? Do all Catholics stick with that idea? Or how about the Holy Roman Emperors (approved of by the pope) who expelled and burned Jews alive? I didn’t see any popes condemning that.

I figured if you are going to say that the entire Lutheran Church condoned what you claim Luther did himself, that I would just lump all Catholics together, too.

 

[gcnuss]

But isn’t there a difference? The sins and atrocities committed by Luther were done by Luther himself and therefore condoned by the Lutheran church…

The Lutheran church does not condone any sins Luther may have committed.

… since it is his church, he is the Lutheran church.

The Lutheran church is not Luther’s church and Luther was (and is) not the Lutheran Church. He himself would have argued strenuously against any such idea. In fact, the calling of Luther’s followers by the name “Lutheran” originated in the papal bull Decet Romanum.

 

[Rainman2]

So all Catholics condoned the idea that killing Muslims was the path to heaven like the pope at that time said? And who controlled the Papal States? If the pope didn’t like Jews forced into ghettos during those times why did he not stop it? How about the idea started by the catholic saint I mentioned earlier that Jews are Christ-killers? Do all Catholics stick with that idea? Or how about the Holy Roman Emperors (approved of by the pope) who expelled and burned Jews alive? I didn’t see any popes condemning that.

I figured if you are going to say that the entire Lutheran Church condoned what you claim Luther did himself, that I would just lump all Catholics together, too.

Can you please provide proof of your accusations? I am interested in where your information came from.

 

[Ockham]

Christians,

We are all sinners. St. Peter and St. Paul, St. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Pastor Gary, my priest, you and I.

As the hymn goes, let us love one another. Let us pray the flock reunites.

 

[reteeks21]

Can you please provide proof of your accusations? I am interested in where your information came from.

Look it up yourself. It isn’t hard to come by. If I wanted “proof” for your “accusations” then I would go and find them and either agree or refute them. You make it sound like I out the rcc on trial. I didn’t. I just stated historical fact. There is no sin in that, and there is no shame in admitting mistakes. That’s just life.

 

[bobregan]

Way too much bickering back and forth here, nothing will be solved. Maybe all of us need to quit wasting so much time here and get off-line and go out in to the world and be Christians in action. Grab our rosaries and pray in front of abortion clinics. Put some hours in a homeless shelter. Visit the sick and lonely old man or lady down the street. Sit and listen to our spouses and play with our kids. Call our mothers…

…But quit wasting so much time here trying to be pithier than thou.

As Saint Francis said: “Preach the Gospel at all times, and if necessary, use words.”

I’m gone…God Bless…Happy Easter…

 

[Rainman2]

Look it up yourself. It isn’t hard to come by. If I wanted “proof” for your “accusations” then I would go and find them and either agree or refute them. You make it sound like I out the rcc on trial. I didn’t. I just stated historical fact. There is no sin in that, and there is no shame in admitting mistakes. That’s just life.

That is true, no shame in admitting mistakes. I was not trying to be offensive, just trying to learn by asking questions, researching and comparing. I was curious about your sources, because I doubt mine would make the same comments. I like to compare both sides as much as I can. Sorry if you took it wrong or as an insult.

 

[Rainman2]

The Lutheran church does not condone any sins Luther may have committed.

The Lutheran church is not Luther’s church and Luther was (and is) not the Lutheran Church. He himself would have argued strenuously against any such idea. In fact, the calling of Luther’s followers by the name “Lutheran” originated in the papal bull Decet Romanum.

This is what I have found about where the name “Lutheran” came from:
History reports to us instead that they were first given this name by their opponents in order to insult them. Dr. Eck, who held that well known disputation with Luther in Leipzig, was the first to call those who held to Luther’s teaching by that name

and this is my source: mindspring.com/~jdarcy/files/justify.htm.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

I think it is important that we know as much as we can about a persons character before we make judgements about whether he is fit to lead and preach. Many people for example do not realise that Luther (at least towards the end of his life) was shockingly ant-semitic. In his book “On the Jews and their Lies” Luther (1540s) makes some disgusting ascertations. Luther suggests that the German people should:

1. set fire to synagogues and schools
2. burn houses
3. confiscate all Jewish religious writings
   4)forbid Rabbis from teaching
   5)make the Jews slaves of germans

I personally find the above remarks outrageous and could never imagine that a person who could espouse them could be permitted to preach let alone help forumlate theology.

All true.

However, using your approach in regards to making judgments, we could condemn many popes and Church theologians of the past. This is not the correct approach when dealing with truth and judgment.

Peace…

MW

 

[Ginger2]

All true.

However, using your approach in regards to making judgments, we could condemn many popes and Church theologians of the past. This is not the correct approach when dealing with truth and judgment.

Peace…

MW

This is the very point I’ve been trying to make.

 

[Rainman2]

All true.

However, using your approach in regards to making judgments, we could condemn many popes and Church theologians of the past. This is not the correct approach when dealing with truth and judgment.

Peace…

MW

I disagree. When it is concerns the founder of a church, I think it is very important to know the person’s background.

 

[ralphinal]

I disagree. When it is concerns the founder of a church, I think it is very important to know the person’s background.

Was Luther a Lutherin?

And, is there even a reason to comment? All denominations were founded by men and, as such, are founded by sinners. Why even talk about it?

 

[Rainman2]

Was Luther a Lutherin?

And, is there even a reason to comment? All denominations were founded by men and, as such, are founded by sinners. Why even talk about it?

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and He was not a sinner.

 

[ralphinal]

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and He was not a sinner.

the Catholic CHurch is not a denomination.

 

[Rainman2]

Was Luther a Lutherin?

And, is there even a reason to comment? All denominations were founded by men and, as such, are founded by sinners. Why even talk about it?

And that is my point exactly. Why would anyone follow any church started by a sinning man, or woman? The only church to follow is the Catholic Church.

 

[Contarini]

Look it up yourself. It isn’t hard to come by. If I wanted “proof” for your “accusations” then I would go and find them and either agree or refute them.

Well that’s just silly. The person who makes a claim needs to support it. It’s rude to demand that other people do the work to refute the unsubstantiated claims that you make. Life is too short for that.

Edwin

 

[josie_L]

I disagree. When it is concerns the founder of a church, I think it is very important to know the person’s background.

Just like it’s important to understand Islam through Mohammed.

 

[josie_L]

I think we’re still missing the point here. We’re comparing Luther to other Christian leaders. Luther wasn’t just a leader like a priest or bishop. He formed his own Christian religion. He changed the Bible to fit his own, new doctrine.

It’s obvious that Luther was a sinner–all men are. That he was worse than most is also obvious. But it’s not really that important.

Luther founded a new Christian religion. Were his pronouncements spoken infallibly? Were the changed to the Bible guided by the Holy Spirit? Or were these things the outcome of the musings of a very sinful, mentally distressed human being who was saw abuses in his church and rebelled against her.

Are these changes the work of God, or are they the acts of angry rebellion and an ego run amuk? Was this a response to the Holy Spirit, or was it one desperate man’s way of dealing with his own tortured mind?

As I said before, Luther was a very intelligent man, and he was right about the abuses the bishops were inflicting on vulnerable church members. He was a thinker, no doubt. But is that enough to form a new Christian religion? He, no matter how intelligent he was, is not perfect. How is he able to change doctrine and gut the OT to suit his own interpretation of certain parts of the NT? And he wanted to excise parts of the NT, too!

Luther cut parts of the Bible out of the Canon and kept others. That means that Lutherans are using the canon of Luther and that they believe he, a sinning man, is able to determine canon on his own. Catholics don’t believe that even the popes have that ability.

But, you see, he, as founder of his own new Christian religion (as Jesus was the founder of the Catholic Church), he believed he could do that.

If not Luther, then on what authority do Lutherans say their church and Bible were formed? If you believe it was under the Holy Spirits authority, are you claiming infalbility for Luther when he was speaking on faith and morals? If not, then how do you know that what he said is, in fact, correct?

Actually, what you have said is true, and I have alluded/mentioned this in my previous posts, it’s just that those who are responding are not getting it.