Was it wrong to post these scandalous woodcuts by Luther?

[raumzeitmc2]

To all my Catholic and especially my dear Protestant friends here a Catholic Answers Forums: I need your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Elsewhere on this forum today, I posted the woodcuts which you see below. These had been originally commissioned and sanctioned by Luther himself.

Hic Oscula Pedibus Papae Figuntur (Kissing the Pope’s Feet)

thumbsnap.com/v/9M1s3m0Y.jpg

Adoratur Papa Deus Terrenus (The Pope, God of this World, is Worshiped)

thumbsnap.com/v/0UTSRaPw.jpg

Originally posted here.

These promptly drew the ire of a least a couple of the folks here who proceeded to roundly condemn me.

*TriuneUnity *for example, responded by accusing me of being “obsessed with defaming Luther” and of bringing him up “in every single conversation [he’s seen me] have on here.”

As if merely bringing him up were some sort of fault or crime!!

And Pinkyyy said that it took “a real hatred or dislike of Lutherans to dig to find these kinds of pictures and saying…”

My friends, nothing, I mean absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth!! I hate no one. God forbid! I don’t even hate the reformers; I do however think that their scandalous morals and rank hypocrisy ought to be brought out into the open and discussed in a calm and charitable manner.

What could possibly be wrong or improper about that?

And so all I did was to point out some basic (albeit not too well know) historical information about Luther. And yes, I knew this data would hardly be flattering to the Protestant cause. So? What then should be done, ignore or suppress those facts embarrassing to Protestant history? Or should the moral character of the central figure (Martin Luther) of the whole reformation debate be off-limits? For my part, I do not think so.

And just for the record, I didn’t have to “dig to find these kinds of pictures” at all. As a matter of fact, I just happened upon them quite by accident. You see, while I was browsing the stacks at a university library (in the theology section) a certain book caught my eye. The title of it was, Luther’s Last Battles. I picked it up, perused it, and therein discovered the Luther woodcuts. And that’s all there is to that little story.

Now certainly, the mere bringing to light of unflattering aspects of Luther’s character (or of any historical personage for that matter) can hardly be, by any stretch of the imagination, construed as “defaming” that person.

And I might also point out here that, TriuneUnity (who btw, strikes me as a very decent person), while accusing me of “defaming” Luther, has not the least quam about accusing the Pope (or at least the Papacy) of being Antichrist!! TU wrote:

The papacy is the Anti-Christ and fits the biblical model of 2 Thessalonians.

Wow! Talk about defamation! I mean, what could possibly be more defamatory than that? For who or what could possibly be more vile, more unspeakably evil, than Antichrist??

And furthermore, everyone should take a look at the Wikipedia article on the antichrist. Seems nobody there has a problem with using Luther’s woodcuts (as long as it is the Pope who is being “defamed!”). Go figure.

Regarding my own background:

Everyone on my father’s side of the family is Catholic, while, with the exception of my mother and grandmother (both converts), everyone on their side is Protestant! And all my best friends growing up were all Protestant. Matter of fact, it wasn’t until my twenties that I began to re-explore my Catholic roots. So I have deep Protestant as well as Catholic roots. And it not out of a “hatred” of Protestants, but rather, out of a love for them and a love of unity, that I bear down (perhaps a little hard at times?) on the faults of the reformers, who quite frankly, I consider to be the great destroyers of unity.

But anyway friends, I don’t want to drone on forever. I just want to get some (name removed by moderator)ut as to whether or not the posting of certain kinds of historical documents is or is not appropriate here.

Peace.

 

[Cinette]

WOW!!!

Luther defamed himself. I know that he said some really good things but then he would go off and say and do some awful things. His legacy is not one to be proud of.

I think he had a screw loose!

As for Protestants, I have nothing against them. They are on the wrong track but when they get on track they are amazing. They are our great treasures.

Just this morning I was looking at my husband return from Holy Communion (I had been sitting a little away from him) and I thanked God for the gift of Faith to my husband who was an Athiest and is now a daily communicant.

:clapping:

 

[gcnuss]

Luther defamed himself. I know that he said some really good things but then he would go off and say and do some awful things. His legacy is not one to be proud of. :clapping:

Cinette,

Those of us who are Lutherans separate Luther’s good things from the bad. We don’t discard the good simply because Luther was, like each of us, less than impeccable.

In some ways, our treatment of Luther is analogous to the way certain popes of the past are treated. Their lives were hardly models of purity and I would suggest that their legacies are not held in high regard. Yet, whatever they taught that was good is respected.

As far a Luther is concerned, I find his “earthiness” rather off-putting. Yet, that doesn’t detract from the wonderful teaching available in his catechisms and in his writings on scripture. In his life, as in each of our own, there is wheat and chaff. I try to focus on the wheat and to blow off the chaff. (I know that Luther used far stronger terms, but that’s one way in which I, and most Lutherans, differ from him.)

To go back to the subject question – “Was it wrong to post these scandalous woodcuts by Luther?” – I would say first that it is a historical record and shows what, to my mind, are excesses in Luther’s writings.

On the other hand, if they are posted merely to discredit the faith of 21st century Lutherans, I think it is wrong. My faith is neither enhanced nor detracted from by Luther’s scatological comments regarding the Papacy.

 

[Cinette]

Cinette,

Those of us who are Lutherans separate Luther’s good things from the bad. We don’t discard the good simply because Luther was, like each of us, less than impeccable.

In some ways, our treatment of Luther is analogous to the way certain popes of the past are treated. Their lives were hardly models of purity and I would suggest that their legacies are not held in high regard. Yet, whatever they taught that was good is respected.

As far a Luther is concerned, I find his “earthiness” rather off-putting. Yet, that doesn’t detract from the wonderful teaching available in his catechisms and in his writings on scripture. In his life, as in each of our own, there is wheat and chaff. I try to focus on the wheat and to blow off the chaff. (I know that Luther used far stronger terms, but that’s one way in which I, and most Lutherans, differ from him.)

To go back to the subject question – “Was it wrong to post these scandalous woodcuts by Luther?” – I would say first that it is a historical record and shows what, to my mind, are excesses in Luther’s writings.

On the other hand, if they are posted merely to discredit the faith of 21st century Lutherans, I think it is wrong. My faith is neither enhanced nor detracted from by Luther’s scatological comments regarding the Papacy.

You express yourself so well and it is a pleasure to engage with you as you are gracious. As I read your posting I immediately felt sorry if you have been offended.:bowdown2:

You make a good point regarding the papacy. There were excesses in the Church at that time and Luther was a fully trained Catholic priest. He should have fought from within but instead left and if the woodcuttings were the only “excess” that he committed it would have been another thing.

As I understand it the property of the Church was confiscated and landed in the hands of the nobility. If the nobility had not supported Luther, Luther would have been discarded.

You must remember that Jesus promised that he would never abandon us. It is a testimony to this promise that despite many excesses, bad popes, abuses, corrupt clergy, the Church was able to survive and purge itself.:yup:

I understand the feelings of Lutherans when confronted with these woodcuttings. In my understanding of the Lutheran church, there are many Lutherans who are very similar to us but there are threads of Lutheranism whose beliefs differ tremendously. From Lutheranism emerged many thousands of denominations. Had Luther believed in Jesus’ teaching that He would never abandon us and that the Holy Spirit was there to guide us (all Luther had to do was to reach out and evoke the power of the Spirit) history would have taken a very different course.:clapping:

I know that the Catholic Church is a friend to the Lutheran Church and that we consider Lutherans in a different light from Luther. Therefore do not consider the actions of the first poster as an affront.

 

[Pinkyyy]

Well, to illistrate my point, why don’t I just post pictures of the horrible murders the RCC committed and post grisly pictures for all to see (I won’t). Then say, “See Catholics obviously don’t follow God - just look at the pictures”.

I haven’t known a perfect Pope - but if Luther gets mad and does something like this, it’s used against all Lutherans. What if we used the old murderous ways of the church (with pictures) and used it against Catholics to discredit everything they say?

I mean, it makes no sense.

 

[TriuneUnity]

My friends, nothing, I mean absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth!! I hate no one. God forbid! I don’t even hate the reformers; I do however think that their scandalous morals and rank hypocrisy ought to be brought out into the open and discussed in a calm and charitable manner.

What could possibly be wrong or improper about that?

It’s improper when the context of a conversation has nothing to do with the morals of Luther. You bring it up simply to discredit the beliefs that Protestants hold to by pointing out the sinfulness of Luther. By doing so, you judge yourself by that same standard, as our Lord said. If the moral failings of Luther condemns his theological views, then you should become a Quaker, considering the moral failings of Rome over the last millennia.

And so all I did was to point out some basic (albeit not too well know) historical information about Luther. And yes, I knew this data would hardly be flattering to the Protestant cause. So? What then should be done, ignore or suppress those facts embarrassing to Protestant history? Or should the moral character of the central figure (Martin Luther) of the whole reformation debate be off-limits? For my part, I do not think so.

If we’re talking about Luther’s sins, sure, go ahead, bring them up. When we’re discussing sola scriptura and you break in with quotes from Luther that have nothing to do with the topic, it’s rather annoying.

Wow! Talk about defamation! I mean, what could possibly be more defamatory than that? For who or what could possibly be more vile, more unspeakably evil, than Antichrist??

Someone asked the question about what our church teaches. What am I supposed to do, lie about the answer?

 

[bpbasilphx]

C. S. Lewis one wrote that perfectly chaste and proper English women in the 16th century used language that would now be used by women who were totally debauched.

Barnyard expressions and scatalogical vocabulary were just part of the manners of 16th century Germany–and Luther was a product of his time. His own writings contain them.

And such cartoons were part of the polemic on both sides. England, typically, was slightly more refined.

A few centuries from now, people may well look upon the lewd references in popular liturature and entertainment, and be disgusted by what we now take for granted.

 

[RC_Matt]

But anyway friends, I don’t want to drone on forever. I just want to get some (name removed by moderator)ut as to whether or not the posting of certain kinds of historical documents is or is not appropriate here.

Peace.

When I initially saw your post on the other thread, I thought it was inappropriate; this sort of material is historical in nature and has to viewed in the context of its time, i.e., the late middle ages/Renaissance. I’m sure that much of that sort of (sophomoric) material arose at least as much from contemporary secular political considerations as it did from any theological issues. Using it to support a position held 500 years later runs the risk of presenting the material out of context and for that reason I would consider its use to be at least intellectually inappropriate, also in bad taste. That said, after learning what I did on that thread about current Lutheran teachings vis-à-vis the Catholic Church, I do better understand where you’re coming from and will not criticize you. The means of presenting the message may have changed, but the message itself has remained unchanged; at least they are upfront and honest about what they believe.

 

[Pinkyyy]

When I initially saw your post on the other thread, I thought it was inappropriate; this sort of material is historical in nature and has to viewed in the context of its time, i.e., the late middle ages/Renaissance. I’m sure that much of that sort of (sophomoric) material arose at least as much from contemporary secular political considerations as it did from any theological issues. Using it to support a position held 500 years later runs the risk of presenting the material out of context and for that reason I would consider its use to be at least intellectually inappropriate, also in bad taste. That said, after learning what I did on that thread about current Lutheran teachings vis-à-vis the Catholic Church, I do better understand where you’re coming from and will not criticize you. The means of presenting the message may have changed, but the message itself has remained unchanged; at least they are upfront and honest about what they believe.

I think you should read what Trinity and I were discussing in the anti-christ thread. I wish Lutherans would not be generalized. The Wisconsin senate yes has adopted the formal believe that the office of the pope (not the pope himself) has become anti-christ (or anti-christ like). This was decades ago!

The missouri senate never adopted this belief as formal, even though “some” thought it true.

As for the ECLA - well, you can read what we said too about that

Go and read our conversation - this is not taught anymore in Luteranism in general - it may still be online or comes up now and again, but Lutherans are not taught in church that the pope is the anti-christ. So, if you are claiming that “at least Lutherans are being honest” in saying the pope is the anti-christ based on something writen decades ago, let me set the record strait (again) most Lutherans do not even think about this or believe the pope is the anti-christ.

even Catholics have different beliefs from eachother even though they should all follow the same thing, they often differ from person to person. The same is for every religion including for lutherans. Some Lutherans (and baptists, etc) can chose to believe the pope is the anti-christ and that’s their right. Some catholics believe only catholics will be saved (or are likely to be saved), but that doesn’t mean ALL catholics believe that.

You know what I am saying?

 

[sandusky]

To all my Catholic and especially my dear Protestant friends here a Catholic Answers Forums: I need your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Elsewhere on this forum today, I posted the woodcuts which you see below. These had been originally commissioned and sanctioned by Luther himself.

Hic Oscula Pedibus Papae Figuntur (Kissing the Pope’s Feet)
http://thumbsnap.com/images/9M1s3m0Y.jpg
thumbsnap.com/v/9M1s3m0Y.jpg

Adoratur Papa Deus Terrenus (The Pope, God of this World, is Worshiped)
http://thumbsnap.com/images/0UTSRaPw.jpg
thumbsnap.com/v/0UTSRaPw.jpg

Originally posted here.

These promptly drew the ire of a least a couple of the folks here who proceeded to roundly condemn me.

*TriuneUnity *for example, responded by accusing me of being “obsessed with defaming Luther” and of bringing him up “in every single conversation [he’s seen me] have on here.”

As if merely bringing him up were some sort of fault or crime!!

And Pinkyyy said that it took “a real hatred or dislike of Lutherans to dig to find these kinds of pictures and saying…”

My friends, nothing, I mean absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth!! I hate no one. God forbid! I don’t even hate the reformers; I do however think that their scandalous morals and rank hypocrisy ought to be brought out into the open and discussed in a calm and charitable manner.

What could possibly be wrong or improper about that?

And so all I did was to point out some basic (albeit not too well know) historical information about Luther. And yes, I knew this data would hardly be flattering to the Protestant cause. So? What then should be done, ignore or suppress those facts embarrassing to Protestant history? Or should the moral character of the central figure (Martin Luther) of the whole reformation debate be off-limits? For my part, I do not think so.

And just for the record, I didn’t have to “dig to find these kinds of pictures” at all. As a matter of fact, I just happened upon them quite by accident. You see, while I was browsing the stacks at a university library (in the theology section) a certain book caught my eye. The title of it was, Luther’s Last Battles. I picked it up, perused it, and therein discovered the Luther woodcuts. And that’s all there is to that little story.

Now certainly, the mere bringing to light of unflattering aspects of Luther’s character (or of any historical personage for that matter) can hardly be, by any stretch of the imagination, construed as “defaming” that person.

And I might also point out here that, TriuneUnity (who btw, strikes me as a very decent person), while accusing me of “defaming” Luther, has not the least quam about accusing the Pope (or at least the Papacy) of being Antichrist!! TU wrote:

Wow! Talk about defamation! I mean, what could possibly be more defamatory than that? For who or what could possibly be more vile, more unspeakably evil, than Antichrist??

And furthermore, everyone should take a look at the Wikipedia article on the antichrist. Seems nobody there has a problem with using Luther’s woodcuts (as long as it is the Pope who is being “defamed!”). Go figure.

Regarding my own background:

Everyone on my father’s side of the family is Catholic, while, with the exception of my mother and grandmother (both converts), everyone on their side is Protestant! And all my best friends growing up were all Protestant. Matter of fact, it wasn’t until my twenties that I began to re-explore my Catholic roots. So I have deep Protestant as well as Catholic roots. And it not out of a “hatred” of Protestants, but rather, out of a love for them and a love of unity, that I bear down (perhaps a little hard at times?) on the faults of the reformers, who quite frankly, I consider to be the great destroyers of unity.

But anyway friends, I don’t want to drone on forever. I just want to get some (name removed by moderator)ut as to whether or not the posting of certain kinds of historical documents is or is not appropriate here.

Peace.

IMO, it was a dumb thing to do; nevertheless, there’s neither any law against being dumb, nor is there any law against doing dumb things.

 

[Cinette]

When I initially saw your post on the other thread, I thought it was inappropriate; this sort of material is historical in nature and has to viewed in the context of its time, i.e., the late middle ages/Renaissance. I’m sure that much of that sort of (sophomoric) material arose at least as much from contemporary secular political considerations as it did from any theological issues. Using it to support a position held 500 years later runs the risk of presenting the material out of context and for that reason I would consider its use to be at least intellectually inappropriate, also in bad taste. That said, after learning what I did on that thread about current Lutheran teachings vis-à-vis the Catholic Church, I do better understand where you’re coming from and will not criticize you. The means of presenting the message may have changed, but the message itself has remained unchanged; at least they are upfront and honest about what they believe.

:whacky: Ha! Ha! now I know that lowering your pants and showing your “tush” is not an English “invention”. In Southern European culture one doesn’t find this kind of behaviour. When I learned to speak Portuguese there were reserved words for men which women wouldn’t use (I am talking about 40 years ago) - these were mild words, not even swear words. Now everybody uses them! But lowering the pants is just too crude.

 

[Cinette]

I think you should read what Trinity and I were discussing in the anti-christ thread. I wish Lutherans would not be generalized. The Wisconsin senate yes has adopted the formal believe that the office of the pope (not the pope himself) has become anti-christ (or anti-christ like). This was decades ago!

The missouri senate never adopted this belief as formal, even though “some” thought it true.

As for the ECLA - well, you can read what we said too about that

Go and read our conversation - this is not taught anymore in Luteranism in general - it may still be online or comes up now and again, but Lutherans are not taught in church that the pope is the anti-christ. So, if you are claiming that “at least Lutherans are being honest” in saying the pope is the anti-christ based on something writen decades ago, let me set the record strait (again) most Lutherans do not even think about this or believe the pope is the anti-christ.

even Catholics have different beliefs from eachother even though they should all follow the same thing, they often differ from person to person. The same is for every religion including for lutherans. Some Lutherans (and baptists, etc) can chose to believe the pope is the anti-christ and that’s their right. Some catholics believe only catholics will be saved (or are likely to be saved), but that doesn’t mean ALL catholics believe that.

You know what I am saying?

“Where ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise!”

I said in an earlier post that there are Lutherans and Lutherans. I know Lutherans who I believe are not representative of, shall I say, authentic Lutherans. These people say that the Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon” and the Pope the anti-Christ and all the things fundamentalist bigots say. I don’t consider those people worthy of calling themselves Lutherans. They are to be ignored

 

[estesbob]

nkly, I consider to be the great destroyers of unity.

But anyway friends, I don’t want to drone on forever. I just want to get some (name removed by moderator)ut as to whether or not the posting of certain kinds of historical documents is or is not appropriate here.

Peace.

I guess if one is into bathroom humor, which most of us outgrew by the first grade, it’s okay to post these woodcuts. But what is the point?

 

[TriuneUnity]

The missouri senate never adopted this belief as formal, even though “some” thought it true.

The Missouri Synod teaches the same as Wisconsin on the topic of the anti-Christ.

 

[JonNC]

Everyone on my father’s side of the family is Catholic, while, with the exception of my mother and grandmother (both converts), everyone on their side is Protestant! And all my best friends growing up were all Protestant. Matter of fact, it wasn’t until my twenties that I began to re-explore my Catholic roots. So I have deep Protestant as well as Catholic roots. And it not out of a “hatred” of Protestants, but rather, out of a love for them and a love of unity, that I bear down (perhaps a little hard at times?) on the faults of the reformers, who quite frankly, I consider to be the great destroyers of unity.

But anyway friends, I don’t want to drone on forever. I just want to get some (name removed by moderator)ut as to whether or not the posting of certain kinds of historical documents is or is not appropriate here.

Peace.

My friend,
I think my concern was the context of the original post. It was unrelated to the discussion of what 21st century Lutherans believe.
We could all entertain with references to the polemics of the 1500’s, and drive the wedges of disunity deeper, to the glory of Satan himself. Or, we can discuss our common ground, and how we can allow the HS to draw us together.
As to the comment you made which I highlighted, I will quote your Catechism:

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”

Jon

 

[RC_Matt]

I

even Catholics have different beliefs from eachother even though they should all follow the same thing, they often differ from person to person. The same is for every religion including for lutherans. Some Lutherans (and baptists, etc) can chose to believe the pope is the anti-christ and that’s their right. Some catholics believe only catholics will be saved (or are likely to be saved), but that doesn’t mean ALL catholics believe that.

You know what I am saying?

Yes, I understand you. You sound like a very decent person and I wanted to take your initial response to me at face value. However, to be fair and objective, whenever I have a question about the beliefs of a particular faith community, I always research the matter myself and try to refer only to the dogmata as it is presented by the authorities of that faith. Former members may be biased and current members may not be fully conversant with the full set of tenets (or, particularly in groups like the Mormons, may just lie about everything). That’s the only way you can be intellectually honest with yourself, others, form valid opinions and avoid speaking from ignorance. For example, if you have a question about the Catholic teaching on salvation (and even some Catholics are WAY off on that topic), the only valid source is the Catechism. That’s the whole deal, soup to nuts and straight from the horse’s mouth. If I have a question about some Mormon dogma, I go to the LDS website and read the source material myself.

In this instance, I reviewed the salient material as presented by both orthodox Lutheran synods on their respective websites and there is absolutely no doubt, whatsoever, about what is currently and canonically taught vis-à-vis the Catholic Church. Now, I don’t think you personally believe this garbage and I don’t think the overwhelming majority Lutherans, save the five-percent that belong to the Wisconsin Synod, believe it either (or are even aware of it); none the less, it is what your church teaches and I was VERY surprised to learn this. Blows my whole previously high regard for Lutheranism as an institution – but in no way reflects on my opinion of Lutherans as individuals or Christians.

 

[PaulDupre]

If it’s true, then it’s not defamation.

Defamation, by definition, is the communication to a third party of false claims about a person that would foster a negative image of that person.

 

[Pinkyyy]

The Missouri Synod teaches the same as Wisconsin on the topic of the anti-Christ.

Not that I’ve ever heard. From what I’ve read, the missouri senate may have accepted it back then, but they did not make it formal like the wisconsin senate. And like I said, I have never heard of it in my churches growing up or present.

We all have our own opinions.

 

[Pinkyyy]

Now, I don’t think you personally believe this garbage and I don’t think the overwhelming majority Lutherans, save the five-percent that belong to the Wisconsin Synod, believe it either (or are even aware of it); none the less, it is what your church teaches and I was VERY surprised to learn this. Blows my whole previously high regard for Lutheranism as an institution – but in no way reflects on my opinion of Lutherans as individuals or Christians.

Exactly. I am also surprised to learn this (like you said, many of us would be suprised to know this and are unaware) - because if this is what the Lutheran synods believe, they do a poor job of educating their parishoners on the church beliefs - or maybe they don’t teach it because they know their members wouldn’t accept it.

 

[Cinette]

I guess if one is into bathroom humor, which most of us outgrew by the first grade, it’s okay to post these woodcuts. But what is the point?

I see the historic value.

Gosh, so you had "bathroom humor before the first grade!!! When children are playing with lego and cowboys?? What kind of environment is that???