Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[LutheranDK]

Quite a few Saints and Popes warned us about the Synagogue of Satan.

I could throw a comment of the same type back at you, but I choose not to. It’s called “charity” and “turning the other cheek”. Might want to investigate what those terms mean?

 

[Seamus_L]

My point is that rather than repudiating numerous Saints and Popes of Christ’s church, I will instead heed there wise counsel.

 

[josie_L]

Nice try to get around my point…ain’t gonna fly, though!
Tempers were high during the Reformation - on both sides. And things were said, on both sides, that had been better left unsaid. If I suscribed to Luther’s “The pope is the Antichrist”-idea, I would not be inhere!

Yes, I realize that tempers ran high but Luther immortalized his hatred for the Church by branding her the “Whore of Babylon” (Did he not write sermons based on such things). Even till this day, certain Protestant sects claim the very same things that Luther did.
What has the CC done to Lutherans that can be likened to this?

I know you do not subscribe to this, and I have nothing against Lutherans (I think in fact that you are much kinder to us than most Protestant denominations), my issue is with Luther.

1: Actually, a lot of “Lutheran doctrines” was penned by Melanchton, although Luther gave his imprimatur.

Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, and other solas which at the moment allude me, were they not thought of and developed by Luther (were they not at the heart of the reformation), was he not the one who took 7 books out of the Bible. . .etc.

Not to mention the fact that the Book of Concord, which established Lutheran orthodoxy, wasn’t produced until decades after Luther.

But it is still based on Luther (i.e., the idea of Sola Scripturea, Sola Fide . . .etc.)

2: I am not denying that the old Luther was virulently anti-semitic. In fact, I think it was I who first used that very word (virulently) in this specific thread? What I’m saying is, that he didn’t catch this sentiment out of nowhere. He was a child of his time, and of the RC church.

Please read my post, I believe it’s #47

As for “virulently anti-catholic”, there are two things to say:

1: As far as I know, Luther continued to call himself “catholic” until his death. He just didn’t subscribe to the idea that the Church Catholic was identical to that branch of it which was governed by the Bishop of Rome.

He could have called himself “catholic” all he wanted, but in the end he did much to destroy what was Catholic.

2: THAT sentiment did not come out of nowhere, either. It was the result of a process - in which both sides made mistakes.

Yes, both sides did make mistakes, but it was Luther who separated from the Church in the end. He chose to follow his own way, the Church could not subsribe to the heresies he was espousing. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide was never taught by the Church in all her history.

 

[distracted]

***Picture this - you meet someone who spouts anti-semtism, encourages you to take two wives and tells you to blatantly lie to anybody who finds out about it (Luther to Philip of Hessa). What value would you then place on his biblical views? ***.

for sure!

 

[ICA04]

Lets say you were back in the time of Jesus and watching the story of him unfold. Then you hear that Peter in aan act of barbarism cuts off the ear of a servant. He did this thinking he was doing the right thing but clearly he wasn`t. So if you were looking on would you now say that Christ teachings ere wrong because some of his followers acted incorrectly?

In my mind i separate the theology from the people who supposedly practice it. I know for sure that the history of the Catholic church is littered with horrendous acts of barbarity committed by people who thought they were doing things in the name of Christ and his Church. They were wrong - they were men - they were fallible and unfortunately lots more will happen in the future.

exactly the point my friend! So why continue to beat the issue of authoritarianism??

 

[ICA04]

Perhaps you should scertain the truth about the inquisition and WWII before you make these assumptions.

excuse me, I think that the inquisitions and the truth about where the Catholic church stood during WWII and after are pretty self explanatory for those who know even just some history. There were no assumptions made.

 

[josie_L]

Perhaps you should read about the actions and despicable things that your church did during the inquisitions, WW II and post WW II and then maybe (but I really don’t think so) you may find it in your heart to set your mind in the true perspective.

The Inquisition (I suppose you are refering to the Spanish Inquisition) was set up by a temporal court, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. They had just if you recall won the war against the Moors, but there were problems still remaining. This had to do with protecting Spain more than it had to do with the CC.

 

[josie_L]

excuse me, I think that the inquisitions and the truth about where the Catholic church stood during WWII and after are pretty self explanatory for those who know even just some history. There were no assumptions made.

Alright, then prove it, because I am ignorant of what you espouse as self-explanatory.

By the way, have you read the book, “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope” by Rabbi Dalin?

Have you ever heard of Pave the Way Foundation?

 

[distracted]

Except that later Catholics, such as Joseph Lortz, have done just that.​

done waht?

The drawback here is that the “assertion postulating possession” can be used against a poster’s position as well as for it; & it is not empirically verifiable. So a poster who suggests Luther was possessed, can be answered by suggesting, for instance, that Catholicism was possessed: the impossibility of testing this kind of assertion makes it useless, as well offensive.​

what is offensive is having to view an image of violence while reading your posts… I don’t understand why the Mods don’t do something about that because they certainly don’t let other things go, things that are FAR less offensive…
In any case… it is ridiculous to postulate that a religious system is possessed… People are possessed, not systems… and needless to say, many things on this CAF are not verifiable but are opinions, as i stated that my thought was. I did not state it as fact… so don’t understand why you bring up non-issue of having to verify it… Even so, my opinion is well-documented by what i have read…

. If Luther was possessed, so may George Washington or Dubya have been,

i think a lot of people are virtually or completely possessed… I think anyone who suspects the Catholic Church is the real one and doesn’t join it is possessed… and i guess if he ends up in Hell… well, that would be “verification”…

.

The judgement that “Satandunnit”, like the judgement that “Goddunnit”, belongs to theology - not to historical study.

big deal… Who said all we can post is historically-verifiable information? And even if that was a criterion … How does anyone know exactly waht happened way back when? We have only books and must take what they say on faith… I didn’t live 500 yrs ago and neither did you…

 

[ICA04]

Alright, then prove it, because I am ignorant of what you espouse as self-explanatory.

By the way, have you read the book, “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope” by Rabbi Dalin?

Have you ever heard of Pave the Way Foundation?

I have had the distinct displeasure of reading or at least reviewing many Catholic biased works and they are all pretty much carry the same tone. I don’t like them because they don’t have the ring of truth to them. Many of them are written by over-zealous converts who are tripping over their own feet to run as deeply into Catholicism as fast as they can. Scott Han comes to mind in that midst.

 

[josie_L]

I have had the distinct displeasure of reading or at least reviewing many Catholic biased works and they are all pretty much carry the same tone. I don’t like them because they don’t have the ring of truth to them. Many of them are written by over-zealous converts who are tripping over their own feet to run as deeply into Catholicism as fast as they can. Scott Han comes to mind in that midst.

What part of Rabbi Dalin, is Catholic?

 

[JonNC]

Jon, I speak only of Luther, not Lutherans. Please, don’t take this to mean I have anything against your church/denomination, I do however have a bone to pick with Luther (as I do with Henry VIII).

That’s fine, and you’re not the only one in that club. I would guess it has nothing to do with the anti-jewish writings of his latter years. It probably has more to do with is theology.
Pick away.

Jon

 

[GKC]

excuse me, I think that the inquisitions and the truth about where the Catholic church stood during WWII and after are pretty self explanatory for those who know even just some history. There were no assumptions made.

WWII is one of my hobbies (though my specialty is the Pacific theater), and it is possible that I might be familiar with some things you are alluding to, esp. in light of the general tone of your posts. But you need to be specific. Titles & authors. If I’m making allusions to what is known or believed or argued about (say) the battle of Midway, I am prepared to reference Prange, or Lord, or Fuchida and Okumiya, or Morison, or Parshall and Tully, or Agawa, or Dull, or maybe Layton, or Costello, or others, in regard to the thesis. That is, I know some history. And more.

So, what are you referring to?

GKC

 

[josie_L]

That’s fine, and you’re not the only one in that club. I would guess it has nothing to do with the anti-jewish writings of his latter years. It probably has more to do with is theology.
Pick away.

Jon

Well, it would have to do with both, and how one would affect the other. God Bless, Jon.

 

[JonNC]

Well, it would have to do with both, and how one would affect the other. God Bless, Jon.

Well, Luther’s anti-judaism is matched by many in the Catholic Church of his era. Neither his nor theirs effects our respective communions’ theologies. While admittedly I’ve read more of the Lutheran Confessions than the Catholic Catechism, I have found no anti-semitism in either.

Jon

 

[neploho]

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.

You would need to reject a few Church Fathers if that is your thinking.

 

[josie_L]

You would need to reject a few Church Fathers if that is your thinking.

Are you stating that the early Church fathers proposed such things?

 

[neploho]

Are you stating that the early Church fathers proposed such things?

Well I would first note that the gentleman here does not seem to be the most objective sort you could meet and I don’t believe he actually cited his claims. Setting that aside for a moment I would say yes. The topic of anti Semitism in Christianity would merit a thread of its own but here is a quote I found very quickly to give an example.

Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho (Between 138A.D. and 161 A.D.)
We too, would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your Sabbath days, and in a word, all you festivals, if we were not aware of the reason why they were imposed upon you, namely, because of your sins and the hardness of heart.
The custom of circumcising the flesh, handed down from Abraham, was given to you as a distinguishing mark, to set you off from other nations and from us Christians. The purpose of this was that you and only you might suffer the afflictions that are now justly yours; that only your land be desolated, and you cities ruined by fire, that the fruits of you land be eaten by strangers before your very eyes; that not one of you be permitted to enter your city of Jerusalem. Your circumcision of the flesh is the only mark by which you can certainly be distinguished from other men…as I stated before it was by reason of your sins and the sins of your fathers that, among other precepts, God imposed upon you the observence of the sabbath as a mark.

 

[neploho]

St. Edith Stein pray for us.

St. John Chrysostom was somewhat anti-semetic.

That, in my oppinion, is quite an understatment.

 

[SemperReformada]

You will find as my jewish friends themsleves agree that jews respect and get along much more with the catholics than they ever would protestants.

You are clearly wrong.

You will find as my Jewish friends themselves agree that Jews respect and get along much more with Protestants than they ever would catholics.