The Reformation

[MarkThompson]

I was going to add, but the thread timed out. We all have to grow up and stop feeling guilty and defensive for what our anscestors did. That’s like feeling guilty and defensive because my anscestors had slaves. They actually did not. My ancestors were Jews and American Jews did not have slaves. But if they had, why should I feel defensive or guilty? That was their mistake.

Not to pick at one side point in a set of otherwise excellent posts, but this is not fully correct. To name one example, Judah P. Benjamin (a U.S. Senator, Confederate cabinet member, and Jew) kept some 140 slaves to work his Louisiana plantation in the grueling sugar production industry.

 

[JReducation]

Not to pick at one side point in a set of otherwise excellent posts, but this is not fully correct. To name one example, Judah P. Benjamin (a U.S. Senator, Confederate cabinet member, and Jew) kept some 140 slaves to work his Louisiana plantation in the grueling sugar production industry.

Will you look at that, so there was at least one Jew who had slaves. It’s still not my fault, nor the fault of 21st century Jews. We don’t have to defend nor condemn. These people were products of their time.

This has nothing to do with this thread, so let’s not get side tracked. The reason that American Jews did not have slaves is that most Jews were Yankees. The southermost Jews were in Maryland. Again, if there were some in the slave states, that’s not our problem today.

We have a tendency to prolong resentments and conflicts. That’st the point that I’m trying to make. We can’t justify everything that Catholics and Protestants did, nor do we have to do so. The same holds true for what Catholics, Muslims and Jews in Spain did either.

In the end, they learned to live next door to each other, attend the same schools, play golf together, work in the same places, and dicovered that they have many more things in common and many values in common.

As long as either side keeps bringing up the dirt from the past, it’s like a marriage. My mother had a very bad habit. When you did something that upset her, she remembered what you had done when you were three-years old, 20-years later. It got on our nerves.

My father, on the other hand, had a policy. “It’s over and I don’t want to hear all about it again.” If there was unfinished business to attend to, he was all ears. If all you wanted to do was go back and rehash what could not be changed, he had no time for it. I grew up with these two wonderful people and learned a great deal from them.

From my mother, I learned that history must never be forgotten, so that you don’t make the same foolish mistakes again. From my father, I learned that time is better spent discussing the things that you can fix, not the ones that you cannot.

From me, I’ve learned that if people made mistakes in the past, you acknowledge them, avoid them and invite the othe person to meet you in the here and now.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[numealinesimpet]

Will you look at that, so there was at least one Jew who had slaves. It’s still not my fault, nor the fault of 21st century Jews. We don’t have to defend nor condemn. These people were products of their time.

This has nothing to do with this thread, so let’s not get side tracked. The reason that American Jews did not have slaves is that most Jews were Yankees. The southermost Jews were in Maryland. Again, if there were some in the slave states, that’s not our problem today.

We have a tendency to prolong resentments and conflicts. That’st the point that I’m trying to make. We can’t justify everything that Catholics and Protestants did, nor do we have to do so. The same holds true for what Catholics, Muslims and Jews in Spain did either.

In the end, they learned to live next door to each other, attend the same schools, play golf together, work in the same places, and dicovered that they have many more things in common and many values in common.

As long as either side keeps bringing up the dirt from the past, it’s like a marriage. My mother had a very bad habit. When you did something that upset her, she remembered what you had done when you were three-years old, 20-years later. It got on our nerves.

My father, on the other hand, had a policy. “It’s over and I don’t want to hear all about it again.” If there was unfinished business to attend to, he was all ears. If all you wanted to do was go back and rehash what could not be changed, he had no time for it. I grew up with these two wonderful people and learned a great deal from them.

From my mother, I learned that history must never be forgotten, so that you don’t make the same foolish mistakes again. From my father, I learned that time is better spent discussing the things that you can fix, not the ones that you cannot.

From me, I’ve learned that if people made mistakes in the past, you acknowledge them, avoid them and invite the othe person to meet you in the here and now.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Your postings are always very worth reading, JR (tho’ I don’t always agree with your judgments). But Mark Thompson made a valid point, very courteously.

 

[JReducation]

Your postings are always very worth reading, JR (tho’ I don’t always agree with your judgments). But Mark Thompson made a valid point, very courteously.

For God’s sake, I didn’t mean to be rude to Mark. I know that he was being polite. My response was meant to come across as, “Will you look at that. There was at least one Jewish slave owner.” The reason for my surprise is that slavery in the USA is associated more with Protestants, because they were they wealthy landowners. Almost all other religious groups gravitated toward the cities and later toward the Midwest and West.

I like using the example of slavery when discussing the Reformation. There are some things that were wrong, but we can’t change what other people did. We can only change what we do today. Rehashing who did what to whom is not going to make anyone feel better. Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict XVI have tried very hard to model for us how to speak to Protestants, how to interact with them, how to speak about them, and how to work alongside them. Yet, so many of us who claim to be faithful Catholics sabotage the work that the popes are doing. So many faithful Catholics are not even aware of some of the monumental agreements between the popes and the Protestants.

There was the agreement between the Pope and the Lutherans on faith and works. They finally agreed that both are necessary and that their arguing over so many centuries did not allow them to see that they were not is total disagreement. The semantic difference was greater than the doctrinal difference.

Now we have another accord with the leadership of the World Council of Evangelical Churches. They agreed on the role of scripture in the Christian tradition. Their theologians and our theologians came up with a statement that their leaders and our pope are comfortable supporting.

Look at what’s happening. Catholics and Protestants either are unfamiliar with these agreements or the few that are familiar are doing everything they can to perpetuate the anger, mistrust, and the name calling. This is not coming from the leaders on either side. This is the laymen on both sides deciding that they’re going to continue a 500-year old feud rather than chip away at what separates us until we’re all reunited.

I can’t tell Protestants what to do, because we have no authority over them. But fortunately for me, since I’m a Catholic religious, I can offer some guidance to Catholics. Hopefully, some people will listen. We need to stop. We need to tell ourselves that we have to step up to the plate and set the example. We have to reach out for unity among Christians and unity with other people who are not Christians too.

It’s not going to happen in a few years. But there are many good things happening behind the scenes and we need to avoid not sabotaging it. Our popes are asking us to refrain from sabotaging the work toward unity.

Even when we disagree with how the pope is going about it, we’re still bound to give an assent of the will. We’re not being asked to commit a sin. We’re being asked to cooperate with the Holy Father and the Roman Curia in seeking unity.

I believe that the best way to achieve unity is to look back at the Reformers, look at what they did right and what they did wrong. Keep what was right and avoid repeating what was wrong. Let us remember, there were very successful Reformers who did not end up outside of the Church. Also, some of the complaints by those Reformers who did end up outside of the Church were valid complaints. Unfortunately, they threw out the baby, the bathwater and the whole bloody tub. But in there, somewhere, they did point to some things that even the most orthodox Reformers had to agree needed to be looked at.

The Reformation is a very important part of Christian History and very helpful, if you look as scholars, not as Catholics and Protestants. Let’s just look at what was right and what was wrong. Keep what was right. Whatever was wrong, some things can’t be changed. We’ll have to live with it. Some things can be made right, with patience. If we truly believe that the true Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, then we must let our faith strengthen us to set the good example and be the first to say, “Yes, we messed up and we’re willing to fix what we can. By the way, we’re also willing to forgive.” From there, we proceed to invite the other person to hear us out and we make a real effort to hear the other person.

We’re not going to agree on everything. However, we can begin by agreeing to listen. No family ever heals unless the members agree to talk and listen. That has to be the first agreement. Pointing fingers is not listening. That’s putting another person or group on trial. We’ve done that to each other for 500 years and it has not worked. It’s time to try something new.

Much progress is being made while the rest of us go about our daily lives… Just look at the Orthodox. We’re no longer excommunicated and neither are they. Both sides lifted the excommunications and retracted the anathemas against each other. Three popes have agreed that the goal is to work toward unity while retaining autonomy and finding some way to define the papacy so that it is consistent with Tradition, while at the same time, it allowd the Orthodox their independence. This will take some work and time,

That’s why it’s not good for us to engage in battles with non Catholic Christians. We’re only doing the opposite of what our popes are trying to do. If we want to discuss the Reformation, let’s look at what was good, what cannot be fixed and what can still be salvaged.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Roy5]

In the Civil War, roughly 10,000 Jews fought in the Confederate army. Lee allowed Jews to observe Jewish holidays, while Grant did not. The center of US Judaism in the early part of the 19th century was Charleston, SC. And there is much more about Jewish participation in the Confederate cause, Jewish ownership of slaves, etc., if one googles.

 As for Catholics, they were strong in Maryland and Louisiana, and many were in the Confederate army. As history tells us, the anti-Black riots in New York during the Civil War involved mainly Irish Catholic rioters.

 But why do we engage in such 'gotcha' nonsense? Protestants, Catholics and Jews all have very seamy side to their histories. When I read how - for example - Joshua slaughtered everyone in Jericho and Saul deliberately exterminated every remaining Amalekite I have to wonder. Some Germans,. both Catholic and Protestants, participated in the Holocaust (though, honestly, I think most Germans were appalled when they found out what had happened). Allied aircraft did quite a job of killing women and children from the sky, too. War is hell regardless of when, where, and who. How many millions of the innocent are murdered? 

  Today there are many Jews in Israel, USA and elsewhere, who would be happy to 'ethnically cleanse' Palestinians who continue to live within what some Zionists regard as property God gave to the Jews. I personally don't see God as being in the real estate business. And, if we are to take the Bible literally, Israel should have everything between the Nile and the Euphrates. See Gen. 15:18 for details. 

 Another justification for those who like to engage in stupid and aggressive wars - in the name of God, of course

  Religion should be a bridge and not a barrier. Let us work together toward that goal.!

 

[rben20]

…When I read how - for example - Joshua slaughtered everyone in Jericho and Saul deliberately exterminated every remaining Amalekite I have to wonder…

This was of course God’s war not Joshua’s. You would have to take that up with the big man Himself I believe

 

[AugustV]

The Reformation was the Great Apostasy and its fruits have been confusion and error such that “Christians” today support abortion, the destruction of embryos, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and same sex marriage. It is not widely known that Luther became physically ill when, as a Catholic priest, he was consecrating the Eucharist. He admited to struggles with Satan. The man was quite disturbed spiritually. Perhaps the Church did not deal with him in the best manner, but those were different times–times when there was a firm belief in Christ, even among the Reformers.

 

[Lormar]

I just finished reading an excellent book about Martin Luther The Facts About Luther by Msgr. Patrick F. O’Hare which goes into great detail. Martin Luther was even worse than I thought he was.

I think his last sane statement was written by him in 1519 to Pope Leo X. According to the book, this quote has been taken from the History of the Reformation by Merle D’Aubigne:

…Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the place of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.

Very wise words spoken by Martin Luther which proves the truth of the old saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I do believe the protestant revolt is one of the saddest actions in Christian history. . .especially because it has resulted in Christians as it were ‘fighting’ each other instead of being united and spreading the true gospel to all. If we had a united Christendom on earth we’d be in a much better position to face the terrible, even diabolical, attacks against Christ today.

Sadly I think that what is finally going to unite us will be as we face hardship and persecution. Because when it comes right down to saying whether we choose Christ or not, the most virulent anti-Catholic "Bible-alone’ person and the most traditional ‘hard core’ Roman Catholic and the most ‘filioque-fighting’ Orthodox are going to be standing right next to each other as brother and sister saying, “I believe in Him”. That’s when it won’t matter to them about what ‘differences’ they have with each other and when they will be One with Him. . .in emulating His suffering as they face anything from torture to death by belief in Him.

We’ve grown complacent having inherited a world in which a nominal "Christian faith’ more often than not gave us worldly power and a ‘social standing’. Now it seems that world is poised to disappear and that ‘faith’ will instead result in worldly shunning, social ostracism, and --some day–persecution up to and including death.

It’s happened before. . .and since few have bothered to learn from history it will be repeated. . .thousands, even millions, will renounce their faith out of fear, a few will stand strong, and their blood will, like that of St. Stephen, be the ‘seed’ from which the Faith will have a recurrence. The final recurrence? Who can say? But it seems that we are heading in the direction of Rome before the barbarians once again… .

 

[JReducation]

The Reformation was the Great Apostasy and its fruits have been confusion and error such that “Christians” today support abortion, the destruction of embryos, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and same sex marriage. It is not widely known that Luther became physically ill when, as a Catholic priest, he was consecrating the Eucharist. He admited to struggles with Satan. The man was quite disturbed spiritually. Perhaps the Church did not deal with him in the best manner, but those were different times–times when there was a firm belief in Christ, even among the Reformers.

I just finished reading an excellent book about Martin Luther The Facts About Luther by Msgr. Patrick F. O’Hare which goes into great detail. Martin Luther was even worse than I thought he was.

I think his last sane statement was written by him in 1519 to Pope Leo X. According to the book, this quote has been taken from the History of the Reformation by Merle D’Aubigne:

Very wise words spoken by Martin Luther which proves the truth of the old saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Luther was a brilliant man and apparently a good man. He was plagued with scrupulosity. By today’s mental health standards, we would say that he was obsessive to the extreme. These are the battles of which he spoke. He never believed that he was anything but a Catholic. The term Lutheran did not mean a separate religion. It meant Luther’s disciples. Even the Catholic Church did not think of Luther as a non-Catholic. We still don’t. He is still listed as an Augustinian Canon. The man was both a genius and an emotional mess. The Church did not deal well with him. The approach was to hammer him into submission. As the Augustinians like to say, “That went really well.”

To discuss the Reformation honestly and fairly, we have to pay attention to a number of variables. We must begin with the Church and ask ourselves what were the triggers that the Church should have avoided? This is an important question, because if we don’t recognize them and avoid them, history can and will repeat itself.

We must also ask ourselves how we dealt with the problem. This is important. We need to keep was was effective and discard what did not work. Otherwise, we’ll spend our lives trying to leave a building by walking into the wall, when the exit is just to the right.

Finally, we must ask ourselves, what is the difference between the Christian of that time and the Christian of today? We cannot deal with people who are dead. We have to deal with people who are alive and within our reach.

This is why scholars have spent so much time writing about Luther and the Reformation. It’s not that they find it entertaining, but that they are trying to sort out what happened, why it happened and what part we can fix or avoid in the future.

It is not the role of Catholics to decide what the Protestants did wrong. It is our role to define what we have done wrong. Ultimately, we are responsible for our behavior, not someone else’s behavior. If we play honestly and the other person cheats, its on their conscience, not our own.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lormar]

Please don’t lecture me.

Thank you.

 

[Lormar]

Luther was a brilliant man and apparently a good man. He was plagued with scrupulosity. By today’s mental health standards, we would say that he was obsessive to the extreme. These are the battles of which he spoke. He never believed that he was anything but a Catholic. The term Lutheran did not mean a separate religion. It meant Luther’s disciples. Even the Catholic Church did not think of Luther as a non-Catholic. We still don’t. He is still listed as an Augustinian Canon. The man was both a genius and an emotional mess. The Church did not deal well with him. The approach was to hammer him into submission. As the Augustinians like to say, “That went really well.”

To discuss the Reformation honestly and fairly, we have to pay attention to a number of variables. We must begin with the Church and ask ourselves what were the triggers that the Church should have avoided? This is an important question, because if we don’t recognize them and avoid them, history can and will repeat itself.

We must also ask ourselves how we dealt with the problem. This is important. We need to keep was was effective and discard what did not work. Otherwise, we’ll spend our lives trying to leave a building by walking into the wall, when the exit is just to the right.

Finally, we must ask ourselves, what is the difference between the Christian of that time and the Christian of today? We cannot deal with people who are dead. We have to deal with people who are alive and within our reach.

This is why scholars have spent so much time writing about Luther and the Reformation. It’s not that they find it entertaining, but that they are trying to sort out what happened, why it happened and what part we can fix or avoid in the future.

It is not the role of Catholics to decide what the Protestants did wrong. It is our role to define what we have done wrong. Ultimately, we are responsible for our behavior, not someone else’s behavior. If we play honestly and the other person cheats, its on their conscience, not our own.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The Church might not have dealt well with him, but neither did he deal well with the Church. He should have followed his own advice in the quote that I provided from his letter to Pope Leo X. The truth of the matter is that he tore the Church apart, something that, as you wrote, we are still trying to fix today.

 

[numealinesimpet]

The Church might not have dealt well with him, but neither did he deal well with the Church. He should have followed his own advice in the quote that I provided from his letter to Pope Leo X. The truth of the matter is that he tore the Church apart, something that, as you wrote, we are still trying to fix today.

Yes. “No man becomes evil overnight” (S. Augustine??) By the time the apostasy was well under way, Luther was writing in response to a papal appeal, “Another f*rt from the pope”. [apologies to the Moderator, but this I believe is pertinent to the point at issue]. He encouraged the peasants to revolt against their Lords, and then changed his mind and assured the lords they had divine sanction to slaughter them, which they did in hundreds of thousands. He began (as did Calvin) by condemning divorce, and then when his financial backers pressurised them they reversed their words. The Pope lost England rather than sanction the illegal divorce of Henry VII. It has been said that “The Pope lost a country for the sake of a principle: Luther lost a principle for the sake of a country”.
In fact, as Hilaire Belloc writes, england as a nation had no intention of abandoning the Faith. Had it not been for the fact that Henry VIII’s wife bore no live male children (probably because she contracted syphilis from him), the Reformation would never have come to England, the lords would have been given no permission to loot the monasteries and establish the vested interest of newly-made multi-millionaires in keeping the Catholic Church from returning: and the Lutheran Rebellion would in all probability have petered out as a North German thing. Some abuses were real, but they would have been dealt with locally, as has happened often enough before. But that, as they say, is another story.
Towards the end of his life Luther was walking in the garden with the nun whom he had seduced out of the convent and married. “Look at the stars! How beautifully they twinkle!” she exclaimed. “Yes, they shine,” he replied, “but not for us.” Then he added softly, “We abandoned our vows”. “Must we, then return to our convent?” she asked. He replied, “It is too late”. He was found hanged in his bedroom after a night of loud debauchery and blasphemy. Like every mortal, he then went to the judgment of God, as will we all. But to portray him as a genuine reformer is simply unhistorical. Objectively, Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII – these men were monsters.

 

[cemiller]

Yes. “No man becomes evil overnight” (S. Augustine??) By the time the apostasy was well under way, Luther was writing in response to a papal appeal, “Another f*rt from the pope”. [apologies to the Moderator, but this I believe is pertinent to the point at issue]. He encouraged the peasants to revolt against their Lords, and then changed his mind and assured the lords they had divine sanction to slaughter them, which they did in hundreds of thousands. He began (as did Calvin) by condemning divorce, and then when his financial backers pressurised them they reversed their words. The Pope lost England rather than sanction the illegal divorce of Henry VII. It has been said that “The Pope lost a country for the sake of a principle: Luther lost a principle for the sake of a country”.
In fact, as Hilaire Belloc writes, england as a nation had no intention of abandoning the Faith. Had it not been for the fact that Henry VIII’s wife bore no live male children (probably because she contracted syphilis from him), the Reformation would never have come to England, the lords would have been given no permission to loot the monasteries and establish the vested interest of newly-made multi-millionaires in keeping the Catholic Church from returning: and the Lutheran Rebellion would in all probability have petered out as a North German thing. Some abuses were real, but they would have been dealt with locally, as has happened often enough before. But that, as they say, is another story.
Towards the end of his life Luther was walking in the garden with the nun whom he had seduced out of the convent and married. “Look at the stars! How beautifully they twinkle!” she exclaimed. “Yes, they shine,” he replied, “but not for us.” Then he added softly, “We abandoned our vows”. “Must we, then return to our convent?” she asked. He replied, “It is too late”. He was found hanged in his bedroom after a night of loud debauchery and blasphemy. Like every mortal, he then went to the judgment of God, as will we all. But to portray him as a genuine reformer is simply unhistorical. Objectively, Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII – these men were monsters.

Where have you read that Martin Luther hung himself?

 

[Harri_Laaksonen]

Yes. “No man becomes evil overnight” (S. Augustine??) By the time the apostasy was well under way, Luther was writing in response to a papal appeal, “Another f*rt from the pope”. [apologies to the Moderator, but this I believe is pertinent to the point at issue]. He encouraged the peasants to revolt against their Lords, and then changed his mind and assured the lords they had divine sanction to slaughter them, which they did in hundreds of thousands. He began (as did Calvin) by condemning divorce, and then when his financial backers pressurised them they reversed their words. The Pope lost England rather than sanction the illegal divorce of Henry VII. It has been said that “The Pope lost a country for the sake of a principle: Luther lost a principle for the sake of a country”.
In fact, as Hilaire Belloc writes, england as a nation had no intention of abandoning the Faith. Had it not been for the fact that Henry VIII’s wife bore no live male children (probably because she contracted syphilis from him), the Reformation would never have come to England, the lords would have been given no permission to loot the monasteries and establish the vested interest of newly-made multi-millionaires in keeping the Catholic Church from returning: and the Lutheran Rebellion would in all probability have petered out as a North German thing. Some abuses were real, but they would have been dealt with locally, as has happened often enough before. But that, as they say, is another story.
Towards the end of his life Luther was walking in the garden with the nun whom he had seduced out of the convent and married. “Look at the stars! How beautifully they twinkle!” she exclaimed. “Yes, they shine,” he replied, “but not for us.” Then he added softly, “We abandoned our vows”. “Must we, then return to our convent?” she asked. He replied, “It is too late”. He was found hanged in his bedroom after a night of loud debauchery and blasphemy. Like every mortal, he then went to the judgment of God, as will we all. But to portray him as a genuine reformer is simply unhistorical. Objectively, Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII – these men were monsters.

Excuse me, where do you get your info? I will admit that Luther was a bitter old man before he died, but it was not suicide. Perhaps you are mixing English and Germano-Scandinavian history.

Luther wrote a scathing essay, “Against the Murdering, Thieving Hoards of Pesants” where he more-or-less authorizes the Princes to murder peasants, not as you state.

He did write some rather bitter anti-semetic things toward the end of his life because he was disapointed that the Jews did not follow his teachings.

He was a very “earthy” German. He used language that even his followers and editors found embarassing.

Some versions of the story indicate that Catherin von Borah proposed to Luther after leaving the convent of her own free will and Luther resisted, for a while.

As a former Lutheran I have read quite a bit about and by Luther. He made mistakes but never rejected the teachings on the Eucherist and sacraments in general, it was his successors that changed the number and kind of them. Luther continued to be devoted to the Holy Virgin and especially loved The Magnificat.

 

[ProVobis]

But to portray him as a genuine reformer is simply unhistorical. Objectively, Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII – these men were monsters.

But look at the positives. They forced the Church though the Council of Trent to define doctrine clearly. Without them, who knows what would have happened to the Church.

 

[numealinesimpet]

But look at the positives. They forced the Church though the Council of Trent to define doctrine clearly. Without them, who knows what would have happened to the Church.

Agreed. “God writes straight with crooked lines”. Let us remember the historical perspective. After the period that I believe was the high point of the human race – the 12th & 13th centuries – came the disastrous 14th century, with the Black Death that took away 1/3 of the population of Europe and wrecked the feudal system, and the Babylonian Exile, in which firstly the Bishop of Rome lived in luxury (and sometimes debauchery – let us face the truth) in Avignon, abandoning Rome, and then later there were rival popes in Rome and Avignon – and then the fifteenth century, in which the popes contended with Councils over who was to run the Church, until a prince in great frustration and exasperation once addressed a Synod of bishops with these truly ominous and prophetic words - "My Lords, if you do not reform the Church, the Germans will reform her for you". In the sixteenth century, after it was all too horribly late, the council of Trent – spread over more than twenty years, dodging from place to place to avoid persecution – proved to be possibly the most successful Council the Church has ever seen. And the Counter-Reformation saints of the 16th century were among the brightest stars in the history of the Church. As S. Augustine wrote in his Confessions in the 4th century, “If You withhold your Hand, we will not obey. If you chastise, we cannot bear it”.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Excuse me, where do you get your info? I will admit that Luther was a bitter old man before he died, but it was not suicide. Perhaps you are mixing English and Germano-Scandinavian history.

Luther wrote a scathing essay, “Against the Murdering, Thieving Hoards of Pesants” where he more-or-less authorizes the Princes to murder peasants, not as you state…

Thanks for the response. I will deal with the points individually, as time permits.

From the Catholic Encyclopaedia newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm.
On The Peasants’ Revolt

… The loss sustained by these defections and deaths was incalculable for Luther, especially at one of the most critical periods in German history.
The peasant outbreaks, which in milder forms were previously easily controlled, now assumed a magnitude and acuteness that threatened the national life of Germany. The primary causes that now brought on the predicted and inevitable conflict were the excessive luxury and inordinate love of pleasure in all stations of life, the lust of money on the part of the nobility and wealthy merchants, the unblushing extortions of commercial corporations, the artificial advance in prices and adulteration of the necessities of life, the decay of trade and stagnation of industry resulting from the dissolution of guilds, above all, the long endured oppression and daily increasing destitution of the peasantry, who were the main sufferers in the unbroken wars and feuds that rent and devastated Germany for more than a century. A fire of repressed rebellion and infectious unrest burned throughout the nation. This smouldering fire Luther fanned to a fierce flame by his turbulent and incendiary writings, which were read with avidity by all, and by none more voraciously than the peasant, who looked upon “the son of a peasant” not only as an emancipator from Roman impositions, but the precursor of social advancement. “His invectives poured oil on the flames of revolt”.
True, when too late to lay the storm he issued his “Exhortation to Peace”, but it stands in inexplicable and ineffaceable contradiction to his second, unexampled blast “Against the murderous and robbing rabble of Peasants”. In this he entirely changes front, “dipped his pen in blood” (Lang, 180), and** “calls upon the princes to slaughter the offending peasants like mad dogs, to stab, strangle and slay as best one can, and holds out as a reward the promise of heaven. The few sentences in which allusions to sympathy and mercy for the vanquished are contained, are relegated to the background. What an astounding illusion lay in the fact, that Luther had the hardihood to offer as apology for his terrible manifesto, that God commanded him to speak in such a strain!”** (Schreckenbach, “Luther u. der Bauernkrieg”, Oldenburg, 1895,44; “Sammtl. W.” XXIV, 287-294).

His advice was literally followed. The process of repression was frightful. The encounters were more in the character of massacres than battles. The undisciplined peasants with their rude farming implements as weapons, were slaughtered like cattle in the shambles. More than 1000 monasteries and castles were levelled to the ground, hundreds of villages were laid in ashes, the harvests of the nation were destroyed, and 100,000 killed. The fact that one commander alone boasted that “he hanged 40 evangelical preachers and executed 11,000 revolutionists and heretics”, and that history with hardly a dissenting voice fastens the origin of this war on Luther, fully shows where its source and responsibility lay.

While Germany was drenched in blood, its people paralyzed with horror, the cry of the widow and wail of the orphan throughout the land, Luther then in his forty-second year was spending his honeymoon with Catherine von Bora, then twenty-six (married 13 June, 1525), a Bernardine nun who had abandoned her convent. He was regaling his friends with some coldblooded witticisms about the horrible catastrophe uttering confessions of self-reproach and shame, and giving circumstantial details of his connubial bliss, irreproducible in English. Melancthon’s famous Greek letter to his bosom friend Camerarius, 16 June, 1525 on the subject, reflected his personal feelings, which no doubt were shared by most of the bridegroom’s sincere friends.

This step, in conjunction with the Peasants’ War, marked the point of demarcation in Luther’s career and the movement he controlled. "The springtide of the Reformation had lost its bloom. Luther no longer advanced, as in the first seven years of his activity, from success to success . . .

(My emphasis and paragraphing)

 

[JReducation]

The Church might not have dealt well with him, but neither did he deal well with the Church. He should have followed his own advice in the quote that I provided from his letter to Pope Leo X. The truth of the matter is that he tore the Church apart, something that, as you wrote, we are still trying to fix today.

Yes. “No man becomes evil overnight” (S. Augustine??) By the time the apostasy was well under way, Luther was writing in response to a papal appeal, “Another f*rt from the pope”. [apologies to the Moderator, but this I believe is pertinent to the point at issue]. He encouraged the peasants to revolt against their Lords, and then changed his mind and assured the lords they had divine sanction to slaughter them, which they did in hundreds of thousands. He began (as did Calvin) by condemning divorce, and then when his financial backers pressurised them they reversed their words. The Pope lost England rather than sanction the illegal divorce of Henry VII. It has been said that “The Pope lost a country for the sake of a principle: Luther lost a principle for the sake of a country”.
In fact, as Hilaire Belloc writes, england as a nation had no intention of abandoning the Faith. Had it not been for the fact that Henry VIII’s wife bore no live male children (probably because she contracted syphilis from him), the Reformation would never have come to England, the lords would have been given no permission to loot the monasteries and establish the vested interest of newly-made multi-millionaires in keeping the Catholic Church from returning: and the Lutheran Rebellion would in all probability have petered out as a North German thing. Some abuses were real, but they would have been dealt with locally, as has happened often enough before. But that, as they say, is another story.
Towards the end of his life Luther was walking in the garden with the nun whom he had seduced out of the convent and married. “Look at the stars! How beautifully they twinkle!” she exclaimed. “Yes, they shine,” he replied, “but not for us.” Then he added softly, “We abandoned our vows”. “Must we, then return to our convent?” she asked. He replied, “It is too late”. He was found hanged in his bedroom after a night of loud debauchery and blasphemy. Like every mortal, he then went to the judgment of God, as will we all. But to portray him as a genuine reformer is simply unhistorical. Objectively, Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII – these men were monsters.

First of all, Luther had very poor health. He did not hang himself. He was very sick and he died of a heart attack. There are medical notes to prove that. Second, he did not die after a night of debauchery and whatever. His parting words were to profess his faith in Christ and he thanked God for having revealed himself to him through his sons whom he loved very much. Apparently, he was a very devoted father.

Second, we’re missing the point here. We’re not dealing with the Reformation the way that our popes leading. We’re doing what we have done for 500 years. We’re attacking and accusing.

This is a pointless exercise that will never bring unity. We must put aside what Luther, Calvin and Henry said or did for the moment. Let the Protestants deal with that. We must focus on what Catholics have done and failed to do to bring about unity.

Yes, the Protestant Reformers had faults and made many mistakes. They were not the only ones who had faults and made many mistakes. They can throw in our faces that we had clergymen sleeping with boys and little girls since the Middle Ages and it’s true. They can say that we had popes with several mistresses and it’s true. They can say that we had clergymen who sold indulgences and it’s true. They can say that they ran away from the Catholic Church to preserve their purity and to preserve the faith as it was handed down to them. We’ve heard this argument in recent history.

The facts are that while all these things are true, they ran away from the Catholic faith, following leaders who were misleading them. The Church dealt poorly with some of them and justly with others. The Church dealt justly with Henry. He asked for the impossible and the Church denied it. The Church and Luther and the Church and Calvin was a whole other matter. The delegates that were sent to deal with them were not the smoothest diplomats in the papal court.

All of that is water under the bridge now. The people of that time made their mistakes and now we have to fix it. Pointing fingers is not going to fix it. It has not worked for 500 years, why should it work today?

I seem to be the only person who has mentioned the Lutheran Catholic Accord and the Evangelical Catholic Accord, which are two major attempts to fix the rupture. I seem to be the only person to mention Ut Unum Sint, which Blessed John Paul wrote giving us guidance on how to fix the rupture.

I know that I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed. Therefore, I can’t be the only person who has read these and understands them. Why are Catholics on this thread not even looking at these things? Why are Catholics focussing back on what Bl. John Paul said was the greatest scandal in history and of which he and Pope Benedict XVI have said that the Catholics are equally guilty. We have it from two popes who are scholars that we and the Protestants are equally guilty of the rupture and that we must do certain things to fix it. That’s what we should be discussing.

We should be discussing what we Catholics need to do in our hearts, in our daily lives, in our parishes and dioceses and in the world to contribute to reconciliation. It behooves Protestants to have the same dicussion amongst themselves.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Denise1957]

In our contribution to reconciliation, it may behoove us to have a proper understanding of what happened during the Reformation. But getting the facts straight may be difficult.

Also, there is an anti-Catholic prejudice that still exists among some non-Catholics, which has, I think at least in part, been handed down from the men who founded certain Protestant denominations, and their successors, and/or more extreme offshoot branches of those denominations.

A few years ago, I had an email exchange that lasted for two weeks with a Calvinist in the UK. I was actually uncharacteristically quite charitable, and tried to dispel some of the myths that he believed about the Church, but he refused to believe any of it. He was determined that the Catholic Church is bad, and could not be persuaded otherwise. Then I saw recently saw an online youtube video of certain Westboro Baptist Church members who protested in front of a Catholic Church in McAlester, OK. The priest and parishioners did not come out and complain, but - and God bless them - other Protestants from the area held a counter-protest against the Westboro Baptists. The Westboro Baptists are very anti-Catholic. Also, the early history of the Church here in the U.S. will show that Catholics (before the Bill of Rights, I think) were not allowed to vote or own land.

How can we dispel certain untruths about the Church which non-Catholics still believe? Sometimes I listen to EWTN, and how they deal with non-Catholics who call in, and who are, lets say, not exactly sympathetic to Catholicism. What the EWTN commentators try to do is to correct certain misconceptions that the non-Catholics hold. Some will listen, and some will not. Most of the time the EWTN commentators are charitable, but not always. It’s difficult to stand up to the truths of the faith without getting grumpy at times.

I don’t think it’s neccesarily a bad thing to try to get to the truth of certain parts of history. It can be difficult, too, to judge certain past situations by our current modern thinking.

Just my two-cents worth.