Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[gcnuss]

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

Point taken. However, Decet Romanum Pontificem made it official Catholic policy to call them “Lutherans.”

III. Our purpose is that such men should rightfully be ranked with Martin and other accursed heretics and excommunicates, and that even as they have ranged themselves with the obstinacy in sinning of the said Martin, they shall likewise share his punishments and his name, by bearing with them everywhere the title "Lutheran" and the punishments it incurs.

I suppose, though, that five centuries have rendered this distinction rather unimportant.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

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

Luther did not found a church. His follower’s did. Luther died a schismatic Catholic priest. His religion was founded by Jesus and his church headed by the apostle Peter. His background was completely Catholic. And if you want to talk about the leader of the Church, the first pope, St. Peter, you remember that this great man denied the Lord Jesus three times, was forgiven and became that first pope. He was impetous, filled with faith and a fallible human being in his person. Luther was the same. The difference is that Luther’s personal convictions were penned and are known to the world. He was a faulty man, as we all are.

MW

 

[orange_man]

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

Luther never intended to become the founder of any church. He preached the Gospel unadulterated by Roman sophism and power lust. As far as the charges of anti-semitism, indeed Luther eventually became quite anti-semetic. However, he had some pretty notable teachers.

St. John Chrysostom:

*“The Jews sacrifice their children to Satan…they are worse than wild beasts. The synagogue is a brothel, a den of scoundrels, the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults, a criminal assembly of Jews, a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, a gulf and abyss of perdition.”

—“Homilies Against the Jews” in Patrologia Graeca (Paris: Garnier, 1857-1866)

“The Jews have fallen into a condition lower than the vilest animal. Debauchery and drunkenness have brought them to the level of the lusty goat and the pig. They know only one thing: to satisfy their stomachs, to get drunk, to kill, and beat each other up like stage villains and coachmen.”

—“Homilies Against the Jews” in Patrologia Graeca (Paris: Garnier, 1857-1866)

“I hate the Jews because they violate the Law. I hate the synagogue because it has the Law and the prophets. It is the duty of all Christians to hate the Jews.”

—“Homilies Against the Jews” in Patrologia Graeca (Paris: Garnier, 1857-1866)*

Eusebius of Caesarea

*“that from that time seditions and wars and mischievous plots followed each other in quick succession, and never ceased in the city and in all Judea until finally the siege of Vespasian overwhelmed them. Thus the divine vengeance overtook the Jews for the crimes which they dared to commit against Christ.”

St. Ambrose (Bishop of Milan 340-397) was accused of taking part in (or ordering) the burning of a synagogue (not only did he not deny it … but encouraged Italian officials to not allowing its rebuilding and not punishing those who set the fire).*

Saint Jerome

*He denounced Jews as “Judaic serpents of whom Judas was the model.” *

St. Thomas Aquinas

*"as the laws say, the Jews by reason of their fault are sentenced to perpetual servitude and thus the lords of the lands in which they dwell may take things from them as though they were their own . . . *

Pope Clement VIII

"All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit.

Need I continue?

 

[ConfusedTim]

I am sick of it - our church has started to have collections both before and after communion. Its not right i tell you coz i always feel embarrassed into making that second donation even though i think i have given enough in my first! They`re just after the money and i am not happy.

I am also not happy with some things that the church teaches me. They dont seem to realise that it should be a focus on Mathew’s teaching alone and not on the other books in the bible. I was inspired to think this and so i will create a new bible and put those other books in the appendix. If anyone wants to read them they know where to find them.

Solamattyboy will be the new doctrine.

 

[orange_man]

Yes, but you and everyone else did not start their own religion.

Golly … this whole Christianity thing just flew over your head huh?

 

[ufamtobie]

I always wonder why some catholics are quick to point out the anti-semitism of Luther but apparently overlook the anti-semitism of those in their own fold.

Semprereformed,

There is sin everywhere in every church, it started with Judas the Betrayer. My point is would you attend a church started by Judas the betrayer? If your answer is NO! Then why should one attend a church started by Martin Luther who was an anti semitism. This Should tell everyone that the Lutheran Church was not founded in Christ but in hate.

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.

Ufamtobie

 

[josie_L]

Luther did not found a church. His follower’s did. Luther died a schismatic Catholic priest. His religion was founded by Jesus and his church headed by the apostle Peter. His background was completely Catholic. And if you want to talk about the leader of the Church, the first pope, St. Peter, you remember that this great man denied the Lord Jesus three times, was forgiven and became that first pope. He was impetous, filled with faith and a fallible human being in his person. Luther was the same. The difference is that Luther’s personal convictions were penned and are known to the world. He was a faulty man, as we all are.

MW

He was excommunicated and therefore no longer a Catholic and a priest for the CC. There was nothing schismatic in what he did, it was a complete breakaway, he rejected the authority (and Sacred Tradition) of the Church and its many doctrines. He was a heretic. As for comparing St. Peter (he repented of his actions and was true to the teachings of Christ) with Martin Luther - that is laughable. By their fruits ye shall know them.

 

[josie_L]

Golly … this whole Christianity thing just flew over your head huh?

And it flew over Martin Luther’s as well.

 

[kalt]

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.

You are still missing the point. Is this a willful act on your part?

We’re not talking about the many leaders who have followed Luther, but you insist on talking about the many leaders since Jesus founded the Catholic Church.

No one is claiming that the leaders of either church are perfect.

We are saying that Luther is more than just one of the leaders of the Lutheran church–He is the founder of that new Christian religion, changing the doctrine and the Bible (to match the doctrine). In doing that, he takes on Jesus’ role, not a pope’s role.

Jesus is the founder of the Catholic Church. Luther is the founder of Lutheran Church.

We are talking about its founder, Luther. Why then, do you insist on comparing the founder of Lutheranism with popes, saints, or priests, and not with the founder of the Catholic Church, Jesus?

 

[kalt]

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…

Yes, why don’t you go do that instead of posting here.

 

[kalt]

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.

Actually, the burden of proof is on you.

 

[kalt]

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

Again, you miss the point. Of course some of the popes were horrible. Everyone knows that.

But they didn’t break off and change the doctrine and Bible to suit themselves.

That some Catholic and Lutheran leaders were or are horrible people is irrelevant.

We’re talking about the founder of a new Christian religion. Luther chose to change doctrine and the Biblle. On what authority did he undertake these tasks? Under whose direction? How do you know that he was not mistaken in some or all of the changes he made?

 

[kalt]

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. All other Christians are following men who made changes to the church that Jesus founded.

 

[kalt]

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.

I knew that.

I was on a roll and went off on a tangent that was really a response to other posters and posts.

 

[kalt]

Luther never intended to become the founder of any church. He preached the Gospel unadulterated by Roman sophism and power lust. As far as the charges of anti-semitism, indeed Luther eventually became quite anti-semetic. However, he had some pretty notable teachers.

St. John Chrysostom:

*“The Jews sacrifice their children to Satan…they are worse than wild beasts. The synagogue is a brothel, a den of scoundrels, the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults, a criminal assembly of Jews, a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, a gulf and abyss of perdition.”

—“Homilies Against the Jews” in Patrologia Graeca (Paris: Garnier, 1857-1866)

“The Jews have fallen into a condition lower than the vilest animal. Debauchery and drunkenness have brought them to the level of the lusty goat and the pig. They know only one thing: to satisfy their stomachs, to get drunk, to kill, and beat each other up like stage villains and coachmen.”

—“Homilies Against the Jews” in Patrologia Graeca (Paris: Garnier, 1857-1866)

“I hate the Jews because they violate the Law. I hate the synagogue because it has the Law and the prophets. It is the duty of all Christians to hate the Jews.”

—“Homilies Against the Jews” in Patrologia Graeca (Paris: Garnier, 1857-1866)*

Eusebius of Caesarea

*“that from that time seditions and wars and mischievous plots followed each other in quick succession, and never ceased in the city and in all Judea until finally the siege of Vespasian overwhelmed them. Thus the divine vengeance overtook the Jews for the crimes which they dared to commit against Christ.”

St. Ambrose (Bishop of Milan 340-397) was accused of taking part in (or ordering) the burning of a synagogue (not only did he not deny it … but encouraged Italian officials to not allowing its rebuilding and not punishing those who set the fire).*

Saint Jerome

*He denounced Jews as “Judaic serpents of whom Judas was the model.” *

St. Thomas Aquinas

*"as the laws say, the Jews by reason of their fault are sentenced to perpetual servitude and thus the lords of the lands in which they dwell may take things from them as though they were their own . . . *

Pope Clement VIII

"All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit.

Need I continue?

The point is that he did. He changed doctrine and the Bible.

That other people are also monstrously miserable human beings, is irrelevant.

Luther did what he did. On what authority did he do it? How do you know that he was correct? Do you say that he was infallible when speaking on faith and morals? Was he guided by the Holy Spirit when he codified his new, gutted version of the Bible? If your answer is yes, on what authority do you know that?

 

[ralphinal]

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus. All other Christians are following men who made changes to the church that Jesus founded.

The point is that he did. He changed doctrine and the Bible.

That other people are also monstrously miserable human beings, is irrelevant.

Luther did what he did. On what authority did he do it? How do you know that he was correct? Do you say that he was infallible when speaking on faith and morals? Was he guided by the Holy Spirit when he codified his new, gutted version of the Bible? If your answer is yes, on what authority do you know that?

I think that you are all missing my point. Luther had no authority to do what he did. there is no question about that. Luther did not have the ability to alter Church teachings or do anything to change the Bible. That is not the issue of this thread.

The specific topic is the sinful nature of Luther. Luther was a sinner. All normal humans are. Can any of you say, though, that his theology was tainted by his sin? Can any of you say that Luther’s sins (other than pride, perhaps) caused him to do what he did? If yes, then we have a topic. If no, then it does not matter.

 

[kalt]

I think that you are all missing my point. Luther had no authority to do what he did. there is no question about that. Luther did not have the ability to alter Church teachings or do anything to change the Bible. That is not the issue of this thread.

The specific topic is the sinful nature of Luther. Luther was a sinner. All normal humans are. Can any of you say, though, that his theology was tainted by his sin? Can any of you say that Luther’s sins (other than pride, perhaps) caused him to do what he did? If yes, then we have a topic. If no, then it does not matter.

You admit that he didn’t have the ability (the authority from God) to change anything, but he did.That in itself is a sin. Get it?

All normal sinners don’t take it upon themselves, with no authority given to them by God, to change the church that their own God (Jesus) formed. And that’s the point. You are still comparing Luther to people who didn’t change the Bible and doctrine.

If you want to compare Luther to other people who did the same thing, people like Calvin, that’s a valid comparison. But you eventually have to gather them all together and compare them to Jesus.

I don’t feel bad for them–comparing them to an impossible standard to meet. They set themselves up as founders. They took it upon themselves to take on Jesus’ role. They can’t expect to then be judged by a lower standard–at the papal level.

 

[Contarini]

You are still missing the point. Is this a willful act on your part?

We’re not talking about the many leaders who have followed Luther, but you insist on talking about the many leaders since Jesus founded the Catholic Church.

No one is claiming that the leaders of either church are perfect.

We are saying that Luther is more than just one of the leaders of the Lutheran church–He is the founder of that new Christian religion, changing the doctrine and the Bible (to match the doctrine). In doing that, he takes on Jesus’ role, not a pope’s role.

Jesus is the founder of the Catholic Church. Luther is the founder of Lutheran Church.

We are talking about its founder, Luther. Why then, do you insist on comparing the founder of Lutheranism with popes, saints, or priests, and not with the founder of the Catholic Church, Jesus?

For the very simple reason that neither Lutherans nor any other Protestants believe themselves to be part of a new religion. You are “begging the question,” assuming the very thing you are allegedly proving.

The question at issue in any attack by Catholics on Protestantism is whether Protestantism is a continuation of historic Christianity or something new.

Your argument runs like this:

1. Protestantism is a break with historic Christianity because its most significant early theologian held some horrifying views which were in line with previous expressions of Christianity.
2. This is not illogical because Protestantism was a break with historic Christianity, and so the “founder” of Protestantism must be held accountable for even those evil views which he inherited from late medieval Christianity.

Edwin

 

[ralphinal]

You admit that he didn’t have the ability (the authority from God) to change anything, but he did.That in itself is a sin. Get it?

All normal sinners don’t take it upon themselves, with no authority given to them by God, to change the church that their own God (Jesus) formed. And that’s the point. You are still comparing Luther to people who didn’t change the Bible and doctrine.

If you want to compare Luther to other people who did the same thing, people like Calvin, that’s a valid comparison. But you eventually have to gather them all together and compare them to Jesus.

I don’t feel bad for them–comparing them to an impossible standard to meet. They set themselves up as founders. They took it upon themselves to take on Jesus’ role. They can’t expect to then be judged by a lower standard–at the papal level.

Isn’t it enough that he did something with no authority? Isn’t the rest just gravy?

And again, can you say that his sins shaped his theology? We can with some heretics and founders of other religions. If we can, then it is a good topic to discuss

 

[Rainman2]

For the very simple reason that neither Lutherans nor any other Protestants believe themselves to be part of a new religion. You are “begging the question,” assuming the very thing you are allegedly proving.

The question at issue in any attack by Catholics on Protestantism is whether Protestantism is a continuation of historic Christianity or something new.

Your argument runs like this:

1. Protestantism is a break with historic Christianity because its most significant early theologian held some horrifying views which were in line with previous expressions of Christianity.
2. This is not illogical because Protestantism was a break with historic Christianity, and so the “founder” of Protestantism must be held accountable for even those evil views which he inherited from late medieval Christianity.

Edwin

Jesus asked that we follow Him, ALL of His teachings. He didn’t say pick and choose any of those teachings that agree with your beliefs or that you feel comfortable with and follow them. Any teachings other than what Jesus taught are new teachings, a complete breakaway from Jesus, therefore, a new religion.