Sin boldly?

[raumzeitmc2]

In other words if you believe in the merits of your argument then why not just present your argument without slanderous attacks?

Humble, whose slandering anyone? Certainly, not I. Or, if it can be shown that I have, I’ll retract and apologize. But again, I don’t think I, or any of the other posters on this thread, have “slandered” Luther - or anyone else for that matter.

It is clear that Luther never taught it’s OK to sin (but rather he was merely prone to hyperbole).

Actually, as it happens, not only Luther, but Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer and several other “reformers” did in fact, teach it was “OK to sin,” for they gave Philip of Hesse permission to take a second wife!

But a quick history lesson for those not familiar with the case:

The most warlike amongst the protestant chiefs, the impetuous and choleric landgrave of Hesse, caused it to he represented to Luther, that the state of his health *required * him to cohabit with more than one wife.

The instructions given to Bucerus for negotiating this matter with the theologians of Wittemberg offer a curious mixture of sensuality, of religious apprehensions, and of daring frankness. 1

“Ever since my marriage,” so say the recorded instructions of the prince to his minister, “I have lived constantly in a state of adultery and fornication, and, as I will not forego this course of life, I am interdicted from taking the holy communion; for St Paul expressly says, ‘The adulterer shall not see the kingdom of heaven.’”

The landgrave then proceeds to enumerate the reasons which have compelled him to follow his actual course of life. “My consort,” says he, “is neither handsome nor of a pleasant disposition; she smells ill, drinks, and my chamberlains are well aware how she conducts herself when intoxicated.” …

“I am of a warm complexion, as my physicians can testify; I am obliged frequently to repair to the imperial diet. Ubi laute vivitur et corpus curator; quomodo me ibi gerere queam absque uxore, eum non semper magnum gynaeceum mecum ducere passim?

“How would you have me punish fornication and other offences when I myself am guilty, and am liable to be told, ‘Commence with yourself?’ If we take arms in the cause of the gospel, I shall do so with a troubled conscience, in fear and trembling; for I cannot conceal from myself, that if I am slain,*** I shall go to the devil direct***.”

The Life of Luther Written by Himself, 1904, collected and arranged by M. Michelet, p. 251.
books.google.com/books?id=ojwMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA251&dq=%22constantly+in+a+state+of+adultery+and+fornication%22&lr=

But curiously, none of these same “reformers,” nor any of their gang of “syphilitic saints”, had the least problem standing up to, and, with all their energies, opposing the Pope (whom they considered anti-Christ! and consumed of all manner of evil) and condemning him for his many “sins.”

Yet when it came to one of their own - and was expedient to their cause - not only did they not oppose his sinful actions, but even permitted and gave encouragement (even if we grant reluctantly) for him to continue in them! And who can say, but thanks to them, this poor man, as well as God only knows how many others as a result of their teachings, may very well have lost their immortal souls!

So yes, Luther & Co. did indeed teach men to “sin boldly,” at least whenever it helped their cause against certain other “bold sinners” such as, well, you know, the pope, the Cardinals, and the bishops!!!

But tell me, doesn’t this strike you as being hypocritical? And were not some of Christ’s harshest words directed towards hypocrites?

Not trying to be confrontational my friend, but here, in the bigamy of Philip scandal, we have a perfect example of why it’s so important to know and to teach history.

 

[JonNC]

you should not be spreading this error. Sin destroys the soul, no matter whether one believes in Christ or not. And Jesus said that those who love Him are those who keep His commandments. This is the most dangerous teaching in Christendom todya… that you can just sin and you will get into Heaven… without any purgation … or even with purgation. Mortal sin keeps one from even entering Purgatory.

Sin makes a soul not even WANT Heaven…

People who believe in Once Saved Always Saved need to read the Bible…

I agree, as do all Lutherans and as did Luther, that OSAS is unscriptural. Other than what you say in the first line, I absolutely agree with everything you say here. Of course, the Purgatory thing I’m not sure of yet.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=raumzeitmc2;5128092]I agree with you, but I’m not so certain Luther would. I mean, what are we to make of this? (or is it possible that Thomas More simply did not understand Luther’s views?)

Then you are wrong, and I couldn’t care less what Thomas More said. Read the Book of Concord.

And this is just an aside, fwiw.

I once heard a fellow, born Lutheran, who said flat out,

“I can rape and murder all I want; I’m still in!”

By “in,” of course, he meant that he was “in” with the elect, that he was “saved.” No sin was gonna damn him! **And yes, I know, he’s not representative **of the vast majority of Lutherans (or even of sane people! LOL).

Then why even bring it up, except for polemical purposes?

And then there was this “bible student” acquaintance of mine. Nice guy; we had some very interesting conversations. But one day (this was years ago, btw) in the midst of our friendly conversation, he said, very casually,

“God doesn’t give a fu-k what we do!”

Hmmmm…

Where here do people get such far-out notions? I should also mention btw, that both these gentlemen were very critical of the Catholic Church, very anti-catholic! Go figure.

Anyhow, I’m not trying to be polemical or anything; I’m just genuinely interested in getting at the truth.

Really? You could have fooled me.

If I thought for a moment what you say is what my Communion teaches, I would be out in a heartbeat. I take it there are no Catholics that do not understand their Church’s teachings. But you’ll take the word of some student? Give me a break.

If I want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, I read the Catholic Catechism, not what some student says. If you want to know what Lutheranism teaches, read the “Book of Concord”.

www.bookofconcord.org

Jon

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Humble, whose slandering anyone? Certainly, not I. Or, if it can be shown that I have, I’ll retract and apologize. But again, I don’t think I, or any of the other posters on this thread, have “slandered” Luther - or anyone else for that matter.

Actually, as it happens, not only Luther, but Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer and several other “reformers” did in fact, teach it was “OK to sin,” for they gave Philip of Hesse permission to take a second wife!

But a quick history lesson for those not familiar with the case:

you’re wrong, did you read the link that you yourself provided? It clearly states that Luther advised against Christians (in particular Philip Landgrave, who wrote him asking for his blessing) entering into bigamous marriages?

seriously read the link you provided (I just read the entire Wiki entry you provided & Luther did the right thing, he told him no you may not have two wives, but the guy, who was never all that interested in religion in the first place, did it anyway … I’m not sure the relevance here, actually I am sure – there is no relevance beyond just another desperate attempt to slander Luther and avoid actually discussing the theological views of Luther than you actually object to, which frankly I’m not even sure what they are at this point since no one seems to know enough about Luther’s theology to discuss it authoritatively). All you guys want to do is take tid bits of history, alter the facts (I suppose in hope people won’t check them), and toss mud at Luther. It truly is distasteful and unfortunate (and frankly I feel like you either insulted my intelligence or your own by not properly checking your facts).

You know I’m one who believes that we may not slander the reputation of men, whether dead or alive, when there’s not a high level of proof damning that man. You didn’t even bother to read the content of a link you provided?

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Then why even bring it up, except for polemical purposes?

Not everything is polemical, Jon. But never mind.

If I thought for a moment what you say is what my Communion teaches, I would be out in a heartbeat. I take it there are no Catholics that do not understand their Church’s teachings. But you’ll take the word of some student? Give me a break.

Again, never mind.

If I want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, I read the Catholic Catechism, not what some student says. If you want to know what Lutheranism teaches, read the “Book of Concord”.

www.bookofconcord.org

But if I want to know what Luther taught, I have to read his writings.

And the issue here is not about what Lutheranism teaches, anyway; its about what Luther himself taught - and did. Don’t you agree?

 

[raumzeitmc2]

you’re wrong, did you read the link that you yourself provided? It clearly states that Luther advised against Christians (in particular Philip Landgrave, who wrote him asking for his blessing) entering into bigamous marriages?

I’m afraid it is you who are wrong, my friend. But how can I prove it to you? Perhaps we should just look closely again at what the Wikipedia article actually says.

Luther advised against such a marriage, especially for Christians, unless there was extreme necessity, as, for example, if the wife was leprous, or abnormal in other respects…

He was affected by Melanchthon’s opinion concerning the case of Henry VIII, where the Reformer had proposed that the king’s difficulty could be solved *by his taking a second wife better than by his divorcing the first one. To strengthen his position, there were Luther’s own statements *in his sermons on Genesis, as well as historical precedents which proved to his satisfaction that it was impossible for anything to be un-Christian that God had not punished in the case of the patriarchs, who in the New Testament were held up as models of faith…

It seemed to him to be the only salve for his troubled conscience, and the only hope of moral improvement open to him. He accordingly proposed to marry the daughter of one of his sister’s ladies-in-waiting, Margarethe von der Saale. While the landgrave had no scruples whatever, Margarethe was unwilling to take the step unless they had the approval of the theologians and the consent of the prince elector of Saxony and of Duke Maurice. Philip easily gained his first wife’s consent to the marriage. Bucer, who was strongly influenced by political arguments, was won over by the landgrave’s threat to ally himself with the emperor if he did not secure the consent of the theologians to the marriage; and the Wittenberg divines were worked upon by the plea of the prince’s ethical necessity.

Thus the ***“secret advice of a confessor” ***was won from Luther and Melanchthon (Dec. 10, 1539)…

So there it is! We are even given the date on which the document in question was drawn up! And thus, reluctantly or not, Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer et al, did indeed and in fact give their “consent” to Philip for him to take a second wife while his first one was still living!

A blatant disregard for the commandments! And if that’s not to “sin boldly,” then I don’t know what is!!

Humble, I just don’t see how you can deny the plain facts of history!

 

[holyrosary11]

I don’t say I don’t know if I can believe the CC … I’m an atheist (so I don’t believe in the veracity of your bible, though I was raised Roman Catholic). I’m just simply laying out the theology of Martin Luther. It cannot be said he was inconsistent … that’s just your opinion, which is refuted by the facts (as I’ve laid out).]

well, if you call Luther consistent… I’m not sure i have much more to say to you. I’ve never read such inconsistencies… and i have read LUther’s own words. I don’t know what more reliable source i could have on LUther than Luther himself.

]

The sad thing is you folks feel the need to slander someone simply because you disagree with him. When I say slander I mean that in the full sense of the word. You misrepresent his teachings, unfairly malign his character, etc. just to prove you’re right and he’s not.

see above…

From an unbiased perspective what you’re doing is a logical fallacy (ad hom attacks), which are usually the dying words of a losing argument.

seems accusing people of such things is also a sign of a dying argument.

In other words if you believe in the merits of your argument then why not just present your argument without slanderous attacks?

you call it slanderous. I don’t.

It is clear that Luther never taught

it’s OK to sin (but rather he was merely prone to hyperbole). In fact he consistantly taught witness to faith is good works and obedience.
“Sin boldly” sounds pretty clear to me… Hyperbole? Hmm… i have no idea where you get that word to describe it…

I sadly watch you folks talk past each other, heap ad hom attacks toward each other, and say little of any substance or value (in fact I would opine that very few of you have any more than a very rudimentary understanding of theology).

opine all you want. You don’t know my level of knowledge from that of… well, Adam. Why you presume to know such things is beyond me.

I suppose your (or some other posters) reaction will be to either insult or ignore me. Why attack the merits of my argument (when childish insults are so much more fun)? Ahhh … …

and i say the same to you:

Why attack the merits of my argument when childish insults (not to mention irrelevent commnets) are so much more fun?

 

[holyrosary11]

I strongly doubt you live up to the standard by which you judge others. I don’t hear much in the way of forgiveness in your language … in fact you sound pretty Pharisaic to me.

How do I think Jesus would have reacted? Didn’t he say whomever is without sin cast the first stone? Didn’t he forgive prostitutes and theives? You my friend sound a lot like a hypocrite …

so let me get this straight:

you are calling someone a hypocrite because you don’t feel he/she lives up to his/her Christian values?

Why do you hold those values against Christians…
When you yourself don’t even attempt to live by them?

you’re not supposed to even give a rip what Christians believe… After all, don’t you believe that belief doesn’t matter or some such thing…?

i just htink it is hypocritical to judge someone by standards you don’t even understand… or claim not to…

 

[humble_in_doubt]

so let me get this straight:

you are calling someone a hypocrite because you don’t feel he/she lives up to his/her Christian values?

Why do you hold those values against Christians…
When you yourself don’t even attempt to live by them?

you’re not supposed to even give a rip what Christians believe… After all, don’t you believe that belief doesn’t matter or some such thing…?

i just htink it is hypocritical to judge someone by standards you don’t even understand… or claim not to…

You’re just dodging the challenge … but anyway, I guess I’ll let your wayward logic slip for now. Ummm … yeah I do understand your standards (I was a Christian for most of my life, and a darn good one). In fact I would say I understand your religion better than you do.

It’s you who wants to be the judge of others? It’s me who is simply calling you on it. So then am I more Christ like than you are? I’ll await your berating response (to prove me right).

 

[humble_in_doubt]

well, if you call Luther consistent… I’m not sure i have much more to say to you.

then why did you say anything to me at all?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I’m afraid it is you who are wrong, my friend. But how can I prove it to you? Perhaps we should just look closely again at what the Wikipedia article actually says.

well gee … the problem with your spin job is the Wiki entry you cited is a matter of record, allow me to simply quote it to allay any confusion:

He accordingly wrote Luther for his opinion, alleging as a precedent the polygamy of the patriarchs; but Luther replied that it was not enough for a Christian to consider the acts of the patriarchs, but that he, like the patriarchs, must have special divine sanction. Since, however, such sanction was lacking in the present case, Luther advised against such a marriage, especially for Christians . . .

Humble, I just don’t see how you can deny the plain facts of history!

no … as I’ve show I depict history for what it is. I have no interest in denying history. What I’m trying to say (and I say when trying to say something; say it boldly … no pun intended ) you’re wrong and I’m right (but what’s new)?

 

[raumzeitmc2]

well gee … the problem with your spin job is the Wiki entry you cited is a matter of record, allow me to simply quote it to allay any confusion:

He accordingly wrote Luther for his opinion, alleging as a precedent the polygamy of the patriarchs; but Luther replied that it was not enough for a Christian to consider the acts of the patriarchs, but that he, like the patriarchs, must have special divine sanction. Since, however, such sanction was lacking in the present case, Luther advised against such a marriage, especially for Christians . . .

I never denied that Luther advised against the polygamous marriage. That’s not the point! The point is this:

That despite his having advised against it, Luther, along with several other reformers, all nevertheless gave the syphilitic Philip of Hesse permission to take a second wife!!

There’s no spin here, my friend; it’s just a matter of historical record. Again, just puzzled as to why you seem to want to deny this.

But I’ll say it yet again, just so there can be no misunderstanding:

Martin Luther, and several other reformers, prepared a written document in which they gave Philip of Hesse permission to take a second wife while his first wife still lived. Again, all a matter of historical record.

The document, a copy of which I have before me as I write this, is dated December 10, 1539, and is signed by Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, Antonius Coruinus, Adam of Fulda (Adam Krafft), Joannes Lanyngus, Justus Winther, and Dionysius Melander.

This document, in case you’re interested, is discussed in *Luther’s Own Statements *by Henry O’Connor, beginning on p. 29. O’Connor begins as follows:

Luther’s Authoritative and Infallible Decrees Concerning Marriage.

1. In a letter to Chancellor Brück, January, 1524, Luther gives his opinion concerning the intention of a man to marry a second wife. He writes: “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, nor is it contrary to the Holy Scriptures, but I should not like to see this kind of thing now for the first time introduced among Christians.”

1. In the year 1539, Luther positively allowed Prince Philip of Hesse to have two wives at the same time. I quote from de Welte, who gives the whole document both in Latin and in German. According to de Wette, the German seems to be only a translation; the original copy written by Melanchthon is then the original. De Wette was a Protestant Professor of theology at Basle, in the early part of this century. In a few introductory remarks to this important document, which is signed by Luther and other theologians, de Wette says:

“It (the letter) concerns the double marriage of this Prince (Philip of Hesse) …… In the document written out by Melanchthon’s own hand (literally, “Through Melanchthon’s pen”) the theologians granted the dispensation, accompanied with a representation of the difficulties of the case, and under condition of its being kept secret.”

1. De Wette also informs us that this document is found m the Altenburg (viii. 977), the Leipsic (xxii. 469), and the Walch (x. 886) editions of Luther’s works, but that these three editions suppressed the passage which grants the dispensation for the second marriage. Is this honest?

4 I do not quote from the document, without having read every word of it most carefully, from beginning to end, in the original Latin text. The letter is addressed “To the most Serene Prince and Lord, Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, Count in Catzenelnbogen, Diez, Ziegenhayn, Nidda and Schauenburg, our most gracious Lord."

O’Connor then proceeds to discuss the letter in some detail. You can read the rest of what he says here (pp. 29-34).

 

[JonNC]

=raumzeitmc2;5129404]
But if I want to know what Luther taught, I have to read his writings.

The Augsburg Confession (at least in part) The Small Catechism. The Large Catechism. The Smalkald Articles. All in the Book of Concord.

Augsburg

Article XII: Of Repentance.

1] Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted 2] and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance. Now, repentance consists properly of these 3] two parts: One is contrition, that is, 4] terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of 5] the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ’s sake, sins are forgiven, comforts 6] the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance.

7] **They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such 8] perfection in this life that they cannot sin. **

More later,
Jon

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I never denied that Luther advised against the polygamous marriage. That’s not the point! The point is this:

That despite his having advised against it, Luther, along with several other reformers, all nevertheless gave the syphilitic Philip of Hesse permission to take a second wife!!

There’s no spin here, my friend; it’s just a matter of historical record. Again, just puzzled as to why you seem to want to deny this.

But I’ll say it yet again, just so there can be no misunderstanding:

Martin Luther, and several other reformers, prepared a written document in which they gave Philip of Hesse permission to take a second wife while his first wife still lived. Again, all a matter of historical record.

The document, a copy of which I have before me as I write this, is dated December 10, 1539, and is signed by Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, Antonius Coruinus, Adam of Fulda (Adam Krafft), Joannes Lanyngus, Justus Winther, and Dionysius Melander.

This document, in case you’re interested, is discussed in *Luther’s Own Statements *by Henry O’Connor, beginning on p. 29. O’Connor begins as follows:

O’Connor then proceeds to discuss the letter in some detail. You can read the rest of what he says here (pp. 29-34).

Whether Luther eventually signed off on it or not (as a political move) is irrelevant. He voiced his opposition to the practice; and frankly if you want to tread down this road, I could easily start talking about the famously syphilitic Pope Alexander VI, whose sexual indiscretions (and habitual robbery of the church treasury) are well documented (having a multitude of children with mistresses … and all sorts of other fun stuff).

Of course Alexander wasn’t the only corrupt pope in CC history … while Luther remained loyal to his wife, did stand against bigamy (though he obviously became politically savvy after a while, and perhaps made some expedient decisions that more or less detracted from his theology), and so on.

I guess you guys won’t even try to see past the fog of your incessant bigotry towards one another, which honestly seems pretty silly to me (and certainly unenlightened). It really does impeach your credibility substantially IMO (and I think any reasonable unbiased observer would agree).

 

[MarysGirls]

Whether Luther eventually signed off on it or not (as a political move) is irrelevant. He voiced his opposition to the practice; and frankly if you want to tread down this road, I could easily start talking about the famously syphilitic Pope Alexander VI, whose sexual indiscretions (and habitual robbery of the church treasury) are well documented (having a multitude of children with mistresses … and all sorts of other fun stuff).

Of course Alexander wasn’t the only corrupt pope in CC history … while Luther remained loyal to his wife, did stand against bigamy (though he obviously became politically savvy after a while, and perhaps made some expedient decisions that more or less detracted from his theology), and so on.

I guess you guys won’t even try to see past the fog of your incessant bigotry towards one another, which honestly seems pretty silly to me (and certainly unenlightened). It really does impeach your credibility substantially IMO (and I think any reasonable unbiased observer would agree).

I won’t deny that there have been many corrupt popes in history. But, though they acted wrongly, they never taught such things - as Luther seems to have done. I do not believe that his view represents the views of each and every Lutheran and I am not trying to slander anyone. I am simply letting the facts speak for themselves.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I won’t deny that there have been many corrupt popes in history. But, though they acted wrongly, they never taught such things - as Luther seems to have done. I do not believe that his view represents the views of each and every Lutheran and I am not trying to slander anyone. I am simply letting the facts speak for themselves.

but you’re not presenting the facts fairly (and IMO even using this factoid against Luther in the first place is silly). Luther objected philosophically and theologically to bigamy (and as you acknowledge he said so quite plainly). He eventually (after considerable persuasion) signed off on a mundane matter that he probably viewed as more of a nuisance than anything.

In other words … Luther never viewed himself as someone who could or should have that sort of control over the lives of others. Luther disagreed with bigamy and generally believed it be sinful behavior; and he clearly expressed his objections. However, he signed off on it and didn’t act to prevent the marriage (we call this “freedom” here in the western world).

 

[TertiumQuid]

Catholics should use caution in the charge of polygamy against Luther:

"Ought not this remark of the Landgrave caution Luther’s Catholic critics to be very careful in what they say about the heinousness of Luther’s offense in granting a dispensation from a moral precept? Have they really no such thing as a “dispensation” at Rome? Has not the married relationship come up for “dispensation” in the chancelleries of the Vatican innumerable times? Has not one of the canonized saints of Rome, St. Augustine, declared that bigamy might be permitted if a wife was sterile? Was not concubinage still recognized by law in the sixteenth century in Ireland? Did not King Diarmid have two legitimate wives and two concubines? And he was a Catholic. What have Catholics to say in rejoinder to Sir Henry Maine’s assertion that the Canon Law of their Church brought about numerous sexual inequalities? Or to Joseph MacCabe’s statement that not until 1060 was there any authoritative mandate of the Church against polygamy, and that even after this prohibition there were numerous instances of concubinage and polygamic marriages in Christian communities? Or to Hallam in his Middle Ages, where he reports concubinage in Europe? Or to Lea, who proves that this evil wasnot confined to the laity? (See Gallighan, Women under Polygamy, pp. 43. 292. 295. 303. 330. 339.) [W.H.T Dau, *Luther Examined and Reexamined: A Review of Catholic Criticism and a Plea for Reevaluation (St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1917, p. 106] source]

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

And was St. Paul as much a sinner as Luther?

Of course.​

But do you agree that the immorality and violence of the “reformers” ought to be exposed, do you not?

If by that muck-raking is intended, no. Were they all sinners ? Of course - that’s basic soteriology. So were all the Saints, without exception. Were things done during the course of the Reformation that betrayed the Gospel ? Of course - it doesn’t follow that the Reformation was not both necessary and good. If the immorality and violence of the Reformation condemns it, the Christianisation of the Roman Empire, & of much of Europe, & of the New World, is liable to the same condemnation.​

What is not justifiable is to condemn the Reformation as such because of the looting and violence and pillage & other evil acts that took place. Should those evil acts be exposed ? Yes - but not equated with the Reformation as such; unless Catholics are equally willing to condemn the Christianisation of the Roman Empire, & of much of Europe, & of the New World, & of parts of the East. If one set of separations is possible, the other should be as well.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

James, I agree. But here’s the problem:

Protestants have historically portrayed the Church as an evil and oppressive institution, bent solely on amassing wealth and power, while deliberately keeping the vast majority of men in abject darkness. Against this, we are told, God, after permitting this deplorable state to continue unchecked for centuries, had pity on the millions of hapless slaves and raised up the saintly and enlightened Luther to stand against the vast and seemingly unconquerable powers of the despicable “Roman Sodom”!

In this struggle, Luther has even been likened to a “second Paul”

There is something in that…​

or even to Christ himself, disputing with and being persecuted by the evil Jewish leaders of his day.

…and in that too. Jesus would have been treated no better - in fact, he would have been killed in any age, because He would always have been a threat to human attempts to become secure by using religion as a shield against God.

Christ against the Pharisees - all over again!

Only this time, the struggle never ends - is never “finished!” Every Protestant becomes a Paul, or even Christ - perpetually locked in battle - his own version of the true “heavenly doctrine” against that of the “evil” “Romish” Church!

Such nonsense Erasmus saw clearly enough in his day. Addressing Luther, he wrote:

Hyperaspistes, Book I,
Collected Works of Erasmus, Controversies, 1999, ISBN 0802043178, vol. 76, p. 232,

And how have the Lutherans e. g., described the historical picture? Let’s listen:

The Lutheran watchman, 1866, p. 187
books.google.com/books?id=zGEVAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA187&dq=%22But+all+attacks+against+this+structure+of+a+thousand+years+proved+in+vain%22&lr=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES

But men always raged against the One Church in order to assuage their guilty consciences! Fr. Denifle, who also saw through the pretense, wrote:

Luther and Lutherdom, from original sources, 1917, by Heinrich Denifle; translated from the 2d revised edition of the German by Raymund Volz, pp. 14-15.

Notes:

1. “Heretici autem propriissime velle malum Ecclesie dicendi sunt…” in, Martin Luther, Dictata in Psalterium or *Dictata Super Psalterium *(1513-1515). Luther’s Werke, Weimar ed., vol. 3, p. 445.

D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesamtausgabe, Band 3, Weimar, Herman Bohlau, 1883.
books.google.com/books?id=kS4BAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA445&dq=luther+%22Heretici+autem+propriissime+velle+malum+Ecclesie+dicendi+sunt+%22&ei=rD3yScLFNIj-NZejrLgJ

1. Augustine, Enarrationes (Ennarations) on Psalm 99, no.12.
   books.google.com/books?id=7zswAAAAYAAJ&q=augustine++%22close+their+eyes+to+the+good%22&dq=augustine++%22close+their+eyes+to+the+good%22&lr=&ei=vT7ySYrVE4jeNYXO6JsJ&pgis=1

Protestants, including the Reformers must not have a Christ complex, but the CC *can *have a Christ complex ? That’s as expected. The CC has a foul reputation, for the simple reason that it has done a lot of foul things. For Protestants to point this out is not prejudice or bigotry, but truthfulness. If Catholics can’t or won’t face this, that is no fault of Protestants or Protestantism.​

As for this:

• But men always raged against the One Church in order to assuage their guilty consciences!

• that’s typical Catholic illogic - it ignores the issue, & condemns Jesus very thoroughly (see Matthew 23, for example). The possibility that many of the acts of the CC deserved to be condemned - its trafficking in indulgences (which the Fathers at Trent admitted was a scandal), its profiting by false relics, its avarice, the abuse of pluralism, its simony, its swarming clerical proletariat of semi-literate Mass-priests, & other faults - is completely ignored. The Papacy was about as degraded as it could be from 1471 to 1534 - this should prove useful:

• [ CHAPTER 5: ‘FACILIS DESCENSUS. . .’ 1471-1517 (BlackJack)

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Gottle of Geer … aren’t you Catholic? Now I’m