Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[LutheranDK]

what a manipulater! do you hear yourself?!

I hear myself very clearly. And appearently like a certain someone, I am also able to reflect upon the writings of others and not just rant.

Like I said you live in a country where until just recently you where forced to pay tax to the Lutheran church!
jake23;4928145:

Oh yeah. 1849 is “recently”
I would assume that you DO know (since you make an awfully big spectacle of yourself) that in 1849 His Majesty Frederik VII, by the grace of God King of Denmark, of the Wends and Goths, duke of Slesvig, Holsten, Stormarn, Ditmarsken, Lauenborg and Oldenborg, signed the Constitution which ended absolutism in Denmark, and granted religious freedom?
jake23;4928145:

you practice your 500 hundred year old religion because that is what is practiced in your country, not because it was the truth,
jake23;4928145:

That’s a filthy lie, and you have no reason for proclaiming it, because you know NOTHING about me! I swam the Elbe because that is what God lead me to do. I practise the “religion” called Christianity. Your language and lack of charity leads me to suspect that you do not.
jake23;4928145:

but beacuse it is the religion embraced by your corrupt country! You are a waste of my time! good luck!
jake23;4928145:

Corrupt? Denmark is one of the least corrupt countries in the world. And since I’m betting that you’re American, you

should not accuse other countries of being “corrupt”.

“One should not throw stones if one lives in a house made of glass”
-Danish proverb. Either you’re too stupid to get the point of it, or you do, and realize your mistake. Either way it’s out of my hands. Don’t let the proverbial door hit you on your way out - I’m through wasting my time on you. Have a nice day, ya hear?

 

[LutheranDK]

like a certain someone.

Of course that should be “UNlike a certain someone…”

 

[josie_L]

Because otherwise you are guilty of hypocrisy for continuing to trust some sinners while reviling others.

You have missed the whole point of this thread and the posts supporting it.

When you find someone on this thread who thinks Luther was a prophet, you may use this argument against them.

Not quite as valid, because Islam really does rest on the belief that Muhammad was a prophet. Protestantism does not rest on any claim about Luther’s character or mission. However, I don’t think arguments against Islam based on Muhammad’s character are a very good idea either. I will mention this to Muslims as a reason why I do not find the Islamic case a priori convincing. But I would never use it as part of a polemic to discredit Islam.

Is it polemical when your soul is at stake, it makes good sense to remark upon the character of one who claims to be a man of God. Did you read post #45?

Are you suggesting that false ideas can be good, or true ones bad? I’m not sure how that might work.

No, I was not.
.
Hopefully you examine the intrinsic merits of their teachings.

He didn’t. Lutherans never rejected the deuterocanonicals outright.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean here.

If you think such a general argument works, you have no idea just how theologically diverse Protestantism is. Perhaps you should read posts by your fellow Catholics about the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism. Convincing Protestants that Luther was the devil incarnate is not going to make them become Catholic–it will just make them become more radical in their Protestantism. Lots of fundamentalists and other free-church Protestants don’t like Luther already–largely because they find him too Catholic!

You’re degrading yourself and discrediting your Church for nothing.

I say this because there are many Protestants today who are anti-catholic because of Luther. I have no ill-will towards my (protestant) brothers and sisters in Christ. I do love them.

I take no credit. This is right out of Catholic writers talking about the *Catholic *tradition of anti-Judaism and how it is different from racial anti-Semitism. This tradition of anti-Judaism is what Luther was repeating. It’s not a problem unique to one particular Christian group. So if you think Luther was anti-Semitic, you have to say that Catholicism was anti-Semitic for centuries.

Why do you focus only on this one element of his character, I have mentioned in my previous posts more than his anti-semitism as to why I consider him wicked. Would you like for me to post more?

You know Contarini sometimes you can overthink things too much.

And you have not proven to me or anyone else why it is invalid to use Luther’s character as a one of many reasons to reject his teachings. According to the CC, the fathers of the Church had to meet four criteria (established by St. Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century), these are:

1. Orthodox doctrine
   **2. Holiness of life **
2. Church approval
3. Antiquity

And that Edwin is why I say I have a valid argument.

 

[Ginger2]

And you have not proven to me or anyone else why it is invalid to use Luther’s character as a one of many reasons to reject his teachings.

Two reasons for Catholics:

1. to reject Luther’s teachings is to reject the teaching of the Catholic Church as Luther did not teach SF nor SS as Catholics define them. Luther also held to the exact same Bible the Catholics used at that time. Luther taught the real presence, the perpetual virginity, etc…

Luther objected to the selling of indulgences which the Catholic Church has acknowledged was wrong.

1. To use Luther’s character as a valid reason to reject his teachings opens the door to use the ill-characters of past popes to reject the teaching of the Catholic Church.

No reason for Protestants not to reject any teaching of Luther or the RC if it contradicts the Scriptures. We are not to follow man-made doctrines, but the Holy Word of God, so it is permissible for us to reject even the pope if he speak “not according to the Word”

Ginger

 

[ralphinal]

Two reasons for Catholics:

1. to reject Luther’s teachings is to reject the teaching of the Catholic Church as Luther did not teach SF nor SS as Catholics define them. Luther also held to the exact same Bible the Catholics used at that time. Luther taught the real presence, the perpetual virginity, etc…

Luther objected to the selling of indulgences which the Catholic Church has acknowledged was wrong.

1. To use Luther’s character as a valid reason to reject his teachings opens the door to use the ill-characters of past popes to reject the teaching of the Catholic Church.

No reason for Protestants not to reject any teaching of Luther or the RC if it contradicts the Scriptures. We are not to follow man-made doctrines, but the Holy Word of God, so it is permissible for us to reject even the pope if he speak “not according to the Word”

Ginger

Luther also taught against Purgatory and the authority of the Pope. Just because he was right about most of it does not mean he was right about it all.

 

[orange_man]

Do you by any chance, realize you omitted a portion of Luther’s letter?

I assume you copied and pasted and didn’t know. Apparently your source cannot be trusted.

Then you omit a huge portion of Luther’s explanation, thereby distorting the meaning.

Here is a portion of what you omitted condensed for space but still in context:

"I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in
translation - not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our
language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed,
the other denied, we use the word “solum” only along with the word
“not” (nicht) or “no” (kein). For example, we say “the farmer
brings only (allein) grain and no money”; or “No, I really have no
money, but only (allein) grain”; … There are a
vast number of such everyday cases…

   In all these phrases, **this is a German usage, even though it is
   not the Latin or Greek usage.** It is the nature of the German
   tongue to add "allein" in order that "nicht" or "kein" may be
   clearer and more complete.  .... 

   We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to
   speak German - as these asses do.  Rather we must ask the mother
   in the home, the children on the street, the common person in the
   market about this.  ......Then they
   will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to
   them.

    .... So, as the traitor Judas says in Matthew 26: "Ut quid perditio
   haec?" and in Mark 14: "Ut quid perditio iste unguenti facta est?"
   Subsequently, for these literalist asses I would have to translate
   it: "Why has this loss of salve occurred?"  But what kind of
   German is this?  What German says "loss of salve occurred"?  And
   if he does understand it at all, he would think that the salve is
   lost and must be looked for and found again;  .....

But a German would say “Ut quid, etc…” as “Why this
waste?” or “Why this extravagance?” … - these are good German, in which one can understand
that Magdalene had wasted the salve she poured out and had done
wrong. That was what Judas meant as he thought he could have used
it better." - Martin Luther

So you can see, Luther did not change the meaning of this Scripture.
Further proof to support this is in that Protestant Bibles written in English do not have the word “alone” or “only”. If Luther had indeed added to the Scriptures or created a new doctrine based on this verse, then the word “alone” would be found in English translations of Protestant Bibles - it is not.

The charge that Luther modified scripture is not a new one … it’s one Catholics launched even during his lifetime. Luther did emphasize faith alone (along with the “five solas” that are the hallmark of the reformation), however, Luther knew (and said a number of times) that the word “alone” or “only” didn’t appear in scripture (alongside faith anyway).

However, Luther emphasized the point because it is really the hallmark of Pauline theology (as well as New Testament theology more generally speaking), we are justified by faith & not works or anything we ourselves do. This is the plain meaning of scripture available for all to read … Catholics can keep their head in the sand on this issue as long as they like, it only affirms the soundness of the magisterial reformers & their theology.

 

[Ginger2]

Luther also taught against Purgatory and the authority of the Pope. Just because he was right about most of it does not mean he was right about it all.

Obviously, Luther was in the middle of a horrendous situation where the pope was on the wrong side. Of course he would teach against the popes authority!

 

[ralphinal]

Obviously, Luther was in the middle of a horrendous situation where the pope was on the wrong side. Of course he would teach against the popes authority!

See, this is where you keep losing me. What did the pope teach that was wrong?

 

[orange_man]

And it flew over Martin Luther’s as well.

Whatever makes you feel better about yourself buddy? All I can say is I don’t see many people who have any clue of what it means to be Christian on this board … just a sad bunch of zealots who wouldn’t recognize LOVE if it jumped up and smacked you in the face?

 

[maurin]

Ridiculous. You call someone the “vicar of Christ”

even more ridiculous: the Church of England calls their “priests” vicars

and say that this person is infallible in matters of faith and morals.

even more ridiculous: you claim for yourself and every man that which we claim for one man only.

I’m just saying.

 

[allhers]

Obviously, Luther was in the middle of a horrendous situation where the pope was on the wrong side. Of course he would teach against the popes authority!

Care to tell us exactly what you are speaking of here and provide documentation?

 

[josie_L]

Two reasons for Catholics:

1. to reject Luther’s teachings is to reject the teaching of the Catholic Church as Luther did not teach SF nor SS as Catholics define them. Luther also held to the exact same Bible the Catholics used at that time. Luther taught the real presence, the perpetual virginity, etc…

Luther objected to the selling of indulgences which the Catholic Church has acknowledged was wrong.

1. To use Luther’s character as a valid reason to reject his teachings opens the door to use the ill-characters of past popes to reject the teaching of the Catholic Church.

No reason for Protestants not to reject any teaching of Luther or the RC if it contradicts the Scriptures. We are not to follow man-made doctrines, but the Holy Word of God, so it is permissible for us to reject even the pope if he speak “not according to the Word”

Ginger

He differed in many aspects, transubstantiation for example is not the same as consubstantiation, he rejected Sacred tradition as equal to Sacred Scripture (therefore depriving future christians from the full deposit of faith), he rejected papal authority (that was given to Peter by Jesus), he believed that man was totally depraved,and as for justification:

"The Catholic Church teaches that at baptism (John 3:5) the soul passes from a state of original or inherited sin to a state of grace (Rom. 6:23). God does not merely declare the soul to be righteous or just in his sight. He makes the soul 'holy in itself by producing within it, through the activity of the Holy Ghost, a supernatural quality of spiritual goodness which is a true regeneration, renewal, or renovation (Tit. 3:5, 1 Pet. 3:21).

This spiritual quality incorporates us in Christ as his very members (1 Cor. 6:15), makes us live by him as the branches exist by the very life of the vine to which they belong (John 15:5), and through him enables us to become in a mysterious way sharers in the divine nature itself (2 Pet. 1:4).

The goodness, justice, righteousness, or holiness of a soul in a state of grace is, therefore, a reality and not merely a fiction. It is imparted to the soul by God, sanctifying it in its very nature. It is not merely imputed to the soul by God, leaving the soul still contaminated by the filth of sin.

This ennobling and consoling doctrine, the true teaching of the New Testament, Luther altogether rejected. Concentrating on the one text of Romans 1:16-17, and on others which he thought he could fit in with it, he overlooked all other.aspects of Christian doctrine taught elsewhere in the New Testament. He declared . that the Greek word used by Paul for righteousness (dikaiosune) means simply “acquitted,” as one is acquitted or declared not guilty in a court of law. Such a decree, he said, makes no change in the acquitted person. He remains exactly as he was before. He is merely told that the law does not regard him as a criminal.

Therefore, according to Paul, argued Martin Luther, man’s justification means that he is reputed or accounted as righteous in the sight of God, although he remains as sinful in his very nature as ever. The change is in God’s disposition toward man, not in man himself. Henceforth God looks upon him with favor instead of disfavor, attributing to him the righteousness of Christ which is in no way really possessed within the soul."

I have stated why I feel it is important to mention Luther’s character, it is in post #45.

God bless Ginger.

 

[josie_L]

Whatever makes you feel better about yourself buddy? All I can say is I don’t see many people who have any clue of what it means to be Christian on this board … just a sad bunch of zealots who wouldn’t recognize LOVE if it jumped up and smacked you in the face?

God bless you, orangeman, my brother in Christ.

 

[Ginger2]

Care to tell us exactly what you are speaking of here and provide documentation?

From the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia
In the spring of 1515 the exchequer was empty and Leo never after recovered from his financial embarrassment. Various doubtful and reprehensible methods were resorted to for raising money. He created new offices and dignities, and the most exalted places were put up for sale. Jubilees and indulgences were degraded almost entirely into financial transactions, yet without avail, as the treasury was ruined.

Thank you for asking.

Ginger

 

[AliciaCL]

Reply to Edwin’s posts of #356, #357

Too much stuff to carry on a real exchange about so just responding to what I think is most important.

No, Reformers may have “rejected” certain books but that is not the same as totally re-evaluating all of the scriptures and deciding which were worthy of including in the cannon as the CC did. They indeed accepted most of what the CC already determined should be included in the bible. They piggy-backed on the decision of the CC, thereby accepting the church’s authority to make such determination in the first place, however inadvertently. If they thought the Church was “wrong” why didn’t they make their own, completely thorough examination of all scriptures and make an independent determination of what books should be included in the bible? Because they partially accepted the church’s authority. This means they, of their own accord, decided to craft their own doctrine, consciously departing from the church without a claimed divine authorization, yet partially recognizing it. Huge inconsistency.

If sola scriptura merely claims that the bible has all that is needed for salvation but maybe not everything that could be possible, where indeed does that concept come from? That, indeed sounds “invented.” From what authority or source, or reasoning does one rely upon to come up with: the bible contains all that is needed but there could be more out there that is also true?

I must respond to your comment on Catholic apologetics “bait-and-switch.” An example is transubstantiation. This was a doctrine “developed” from St. Thomas Aquinas I believe, using philosoply, reasoning, theology, applied to what was said in scripture (“This IS my body”) and taught through oral tradition (the real presence) and practiced in the ritual of the mass (Eucharistic offering and taking communion). The later development is not really an introduction of something “new.” Rather it is a reasoning refinement of what has already been introduced by Christ himself.

Catholic theology and apologetics are not easy. There are a lot of layers, I’ll grant you that. There are things I’m still trying to unravel and I’m a cradle Catholic.

I want to tell you how much I truly appreciate your thoughtful analysis and calm demeanor in your eccumenical discussions here.

I need to punch out for tonight. I’ll take a look tomorrow on this discussion thread.

 

[allhers]

From the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia
In the spring of 1515 the exchequer was empty and Leo never after recovered from his financial embarrassment. Various doubtful and reprehensible methods were resorted to for raising money. He created new offices and dignities, and the most exalted places were put up for sale. Jubilees and indulgences were degraded almost entirely into financial transactions, yet without avail, as the treasury was ruined.

Thank you for asking.

Ginger

I wanted the site address for what you are saying please.

 

[Ginger2]

I wanted the site address for what you are saying please.

newadvent.org/cathen/09162a.htm

 

[ralphinal]

newadvent.org/cathen/09162a.htm

I just read that article. It does not say what you seem to think it says.

 

[allhers]

newadvent.org/cathen/09162a.htm

Thank you, although, you left a large part out, right out of the middle of it.

…His generosity was boundless, nor was his pleasure in giving a pose or desire for vainglory; it came from the heart. He never was ostentatious and attached no importance to ceremonial. He was lavish in works of charity; convents, hospitals, discharged soldiers, poor students, pilgrims, exiles, cripples, the blind, the sick, the unfortunate of every description were generously remembered, and more than 6000 ducats were annually distributed in alms.

Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that the large treasure left by Julius II was entirely dissipated in two years. HERE IS WHERE YOU STARTED WITH WHAT YOU QUOTED___In the spring of 1515 the exchequer was empty and Leo never after recovered from his financial embarrassment. Various doubtful and reprehensible methods were resorted to for raising money. He created new offices and dignities, and the most exalted places were put up for sale. Jubilees and indulgences were degraded almost entirely into financial transactions, yet without avail, as the treasury was ruined.___END OF YOUR QUOTE…The pope’s income amounted to between 500,000 and 600,000 ducats. The papal household alone, which Julius II had maintained on 48,000 ducats, now cost double that sum. In all, Leo spent about four and a half million ducats during his pontificate and left a debt amounting to 400,000 ducats. On his unexpected death his creditors faced financial ruin. A lampoon proclaimed that “Leo X had consumed three pontificates; the treasure of Julius II, the revenues of his own reign, and those of his successor.” It is proper, however, to pay full credit to the good qualities of Leo. He was highly cultivated, susceptible to all that was beautiful, a polished orator and a clever writer, possessed of good memory and judgment, in manner dignified and majestic. It was generally acknowledged, even by those who were unfriendly towards him, that he was unfeignedly religious and strictly fulfilled his spiritual duties. He heard Mass and read his Breviary daily and fasted three times a week…

It is always good to tell the good, the bad and the ugly, not just the bad. Thank you for providing this, it isn’t anything that I didn’t already know or read, I just wanted to know where you were getting it from, far too often people only read things from sites that are not very kind toward us Catholics, how refreshing that someone would actually go to the source of the truth for the truth. Thank you for that.

In the year 2000, our good John Paul II asked us all to pray for all the sins and failures of the past, he did acknowledge all the failings and trespasses and hopefully things, in the future, will never happen like this again. (Of course we all know what happened in the recent past, hopefully we won’t top that one!!) Its just as another good Pope once said, can’t remember which one just now…"Even us Catholics can’t ruin Jesus’ Church, (not that some haven’t tried.) Just goes to show me that the gates of hell indeed, will NOT prevail against HIS Church. Had this been any other institution, a denomination or any business of any kind, it would have been in shambles quite a long time ago. We’re still over a billion members going strong!!! (Thank you Jesus!)

I believe that if Luther had tried to reform from the inside, he may well have done some good, however, as it was, the good was accomplished even without him around anymore. Unfortunately it didn’t happen the way Luther tried to bring it about, and things never will happen the way man wants it to happen, but in God’s time, all things are made new.

 

[ICA04]

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.

Have you ever read the Gospel of Mark? Peter confessed that Jesus was the Son of the Living God and not 2 verses later, Peter was being told by Jesus, “get behind me Satan”. Goes to prove that Peter was totally right and then totally wrong almost in the very next breath. I would be very careful who you go condemning for this or anything similar. And oh very true, “by their fruits you shall know them”.