Was it wrong to post these scandalous woodcuts by Luther?

[estesbob]

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???

it was all the rage when I was in kindergarten.

I’m not sure what the historical value is but I am sure it tells us absolutely nothing about Lutheran faith

 

[JonNC]

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.

RC and all,
As I have said before, I believe there are teachings in the papacy that are in opposition to scripture, and therefore, are anti (against) Christ.
But let’s turn this thing around. The official Catholic teaching is that Luther was a heretic, and I’ve heard many people here on CAF express the belief that I, as a Lutheran, am a heretic.
My point is this goes both ways. The polemics of 1520 went both ways. Somewhere along the way, we all must put aside the condemnations of each other that drive the wedge of division deeper. Satan revels in our disunity. Somehow, we must find a way to foil his revelry.

Jon

 

[TriuneUnity]

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.

Or because of overly ecumenical jibberish. There is no ecumenism without an honest evaluation of what each side believes. Hiding behind a veneer of postmodern gooshiness is not going to resolve disputes that are deep seated and strike at the heart of biblical Christianity.

When the Pope last year called Protestants churches not churches but ecclesiastical communities a lot of Protestants went into an uproar. For me, it was a breath of fresh air that the Pope says what he means and means what he says. I disagree with him but I at least know where he stands.

I didn’t accuse him of being the Jack Chick of papal doctrine.

 

[Cinette]

it was all the rage when I was in kindergarten.

I’m not sure what the historical value is but I am sure it tells us absolutely nothing about Lutheran faith

It tells us something about Luther though.

I have a high regard for authentic Lutherans. I happen to know some of the other kind who inflicted a lot of pain in my life. It didn’t put me against Lutherans - I was able to distinguish between good and bad. They were the fundamentalist type and any kind of fundamentalist should be ignored as most times one can get nowhere with them. You cannot argue with them they will aways say"yes, but…" “yes, but…” they do not listen One can never discuss anything with them

 

[raumzeitmc2]

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.

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.

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

Well, there’s so much to say, but before I begin, let me say first that I’m sorry if I offended you or anyone else by this historical data. My intention was not to offend, but to inform.

Now the topic of the thread was this: Do all Lutherans view the Pope as the Anti-Christ?

Now I know and have known that many (perhaps most?) modern Lutherans do not believe such a thing. Certainly one of my mother’s best friends, a Lutheran, never even remotely hinted that she held to such a belief.

But now the fact of the matter is this:

Historically, Lutherans, and indeed almost all Protestants, have, and in no uncertain terms, deceived MILLIONS of souls down the centuries into believing that the Bishop of the Roman Church, the Pope, was indeed and in fact, the dreaded antichrist! And furthermore, that the Catholic Church was the “Whore of Babylon.”

And that my friend, is certainly no small matter! Can such deception have been the work of the Holy Spirit?? I don’t think so.

So I do think there was a valid historical reason for posting the woodcuts, inasmuch as they, rather than detracting from the context of the conversation, actually provided an important historical frame of reference for it! I do not think they were inappropriate all. At the very least, they served as valid and important historical asides.

And you know the saying, “a picture is worth a thousand words.” These images convey at an instant the incredible hatred and contempt of the Pope, his office, and the hierarchy by Luther and the other reformers (with perhaps the exception of Philip Melanchthon, who seemed to have been, at least at times, somewhat less hostile).

And this hatred simply *cannot be divorced *from Luther and his teachings, which modern Lutherans, in varying degrees, still accept.

There’s more to say, and I sincerely thank everyone for their comments (even the critical ones). But at the moment I’m super busy and don’t have time to respond in the way I would like. I’ll try to get back later or tomorrow.

In the meantime, I will keep reading the comments and giving them my utmost consideration.

Peace to all.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well, there’s so much to say, but before I begin, let me say first that I’m sorry if I offended you or anyone else by this historical data. My intention was not to offend, but to inform.

It’s not offensive, just pointless.

Now the topic of the thread was this: Do all Lutherans view the Pope as the Anti-Christ?

Now I know and have known that many (perhaps most?) modern Lutherans do not believe such a thing. Certainly one of my mother’s best friends, a Lutheran, never even remotely hinted that she held to such a belief.

You always have to judge a church by its confessional teachings, not what individual members hold to.

Historically, Lutherans, and indeed almost all Protestants, have, and in no uncertain terms, deceived MILLIONS of souls down the centuries into believing that the Bishop of the Roman Church, the Pope, was indeed and in fact, the dreaded antichrist! And furthermore, that the Catholic Church was the “Whore of Babylon.”

I agree with the first, not the second. I believe Babylon to be something else entirely, on that Luther was wrong, which is why we don’t confess the Catholic Church to be that. You may of course consider it deception.

And that my friend, is certainly no small matter! Can such deception have been the work of the Holy Spirit?? I don’t think so.

Only if you accept that it is deception. I do not.

So I do think there was a valid historical reason for posting the woodcuts, inasmuch as they, rather than detracting from the context of the conversation, actually provided an important historical frame of reference for it! I do not think they were inappropriate all. At the very least, they served as valid and important historical asides.

They weren’t inappropriate from the standpoint of you posting them. They are amusing, at the least. We’re all adults here, I believe. It just isn’t relevant to whether the office of the papacy is anti-Christ.

And you know the saying, “a picture is worth a thousand words.” These images convey at an instant the incredible hatred and contempt of the Pope, his office, and the hierarchy by Luther and the other reformers (with perhaps the exception of Philip Melanchthon, who seemed to have been, at least at times, somewhat less hostile).

Well, the Roman Catholic Church during at that time did not need woodcuts to have hatred of the reform movement. The victims of Roman backed pogroms of Protestants proves as much.

And this hatred simply *cannot be divorced *from Luther and his teachings, which modern Lutherans, in varying degrees, still accept.

To hate that which is opposed to Christ and His gospel is very much what we should be doing, while speaking to those involved in error with love. But most importantly, with truth.

By the standard you set above, the hatred that Rome showed to the Protestants by setting them on fire and beheading them would also indicate that Roman doctrine is flawed.

Yet we both know, that in both instances, it was a product of the times.

 

[mark_a]

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

This kind of thing doesn’t help our efforts with Lutherans or any other disciples of Luther, but what can you do? Luther, like all the rest of us Catholics, had problems. Leaving the Church didn’t fix them.

I personally have stopped with the anti-Martin Luther stuff and now enjoy parading Luther’s very Catholic views about contraception.

Did I mention its part of my signature?

 

[ralphinal]

I don’t see much use in posting them unless the issue is if Luther had issues with the Pope that CAUSED him to do what he did. If it was a personal issue that lead to the fracutring of the Church, that is different. It was not.

Now, there is something to be said to using them if someone portrays Luther to be a holy and pious man who bore no ill will toward anyone and forgave those who hated him…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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:

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??

The OP’s POV may be unwelcome, but it was quite usual among Protestants then, & is not dead even now. Christians have called each other all sorts of things for 1900 years - to imply or say that Catholics are devil-worshippers is pretty much par for the course. If Christians - of any Church - don’t want to be called devil-worshippers, the best response is to show the falsity of such accusations by living in a Christ-like manner ​

Luther was looking at a Papacy - & Church - that, to say the least, was not behaving in an unambiguously Christian manner. There was an awful lot wrong with both. If the Papacy seems to be a fulfilment of a passage in 2 Thessalonians 2, to say so is fair enough. It was not Luther’s fault that he did not know that the passage was not a prophecy - nobody knew that, nor did they until the re-discovery of apocalyptic in (IIRC) the 19th century.

BTW, those cuts are surely not the work of Luther - they look like the work of Lucas Cranach (or is it one of the Holbeins ?)

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.

Which is more important: unity as a visible body - or faithfulness to the Will of God ? The Reformers had to choose, because they saw a contradiction between the two in the Church of their times.​

 

[RobHom]

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”.

You could do just that…but then the problem will arise that a whole new round of polemics will ensue. For each and every item of “horrific whatever” that can be brought against the Catholic Church, an equal number can be brought against “Protestants”…

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 haven’t known anyone “perfect”…at least not personally or in my time…but lets face it…if a Catholic does something its used against all Catholics… What if we used the old murderous ways of the “Reformists” (with pictures and historical documents) and used it against “Protestants/Reformists” to discredit everything they say?

I mean, it makes no sense.

You’re right to a point. However, it is somehow not fair for a “reformist or protestant”…regardless of denomination…to complain when a negative historical fact is thrown up is a bit disingenuous…given the number of items alleged against Catholicism…

So maybe the only answer is to graceful either accept history as it is for what it is, and move on, or even avoid the mention…but it has to be a cooperative effort, no?

 

[aaronjo]

So maybe the only answer is to graceful either accept history as it is for what it is, and move on, or even avoid the mention…but it has to be a cooperative effort, no?

You mean move on with “a cooperative effort”, because both (RCC and Protestants) are killers and murderors…Right?

 

[raumzeitmc2]

You always have to judge a church by its confessional teachings, not what individual members hold to.

Well, there can only be *one *Church. And thus the teachings of all the separated churches must be judged by the teachings of this one Church.

To hate that which is opposed to Christ and His gospel is very much what we should be doing, while speaking to those involved in error with love. But most importantly, with truth.

Agreed. But division and disunity are certainly opposed to Christ and His gospel!

By the standard you set above, the hatred that Rome showed to the Protestants by setting them on fire and beheading them would also indicate that Roman doctrine is flawed.

Rome did not hate anyone, Protestant or otherwise. Rather, the good members of the Church have always grieved for those who have erred and strayed, have always desired their return to the “unity of all nations” and the bond of peace.

But if there were abuses, we should all remember that the Church, like any organism when threatened by an invading organism (heresy, schism, etc.) was merely reacting in self-defense. Indeed, the Church was fighting for her very existence against, I’m sorry to say, violent Protestant mobs, goaded by the virulent and inflammatory words and works of men like Luther, Calvin et al.

Allow me to cite a few passages from William Thomas Walsh’s Philip II.

Chapter XIII, The Spanish Inquisition Is Revived [1559].

What is equally certain, but strangely kept well in the background of most historical research, is that the Protestant Revolt, far from being an “advance” or a “progressive step,” was a long retrogression toward the moribund Judaism of the Pharisees of the time of Christ…. P. 248.

If there is exaggeration in that astonishing but almost unnoticed statement of Cabrera, himself of a Spanish Marrano family, that “most of the heresiarchs and heretics of this present century have been of those people,” it is beyond question, as a Jewish historian says, that the first leaders of the Protestant sects were called semi-Judaei, or half-Jews, in all parts of Europe, and that men of Jewish descent were as conspicuous among them as they had been among the Gnostics and would later be among the Communists…. – p. 248.

Modern research by Jewish historians has made it clear that in the sixteenth century large numbers of English Protestants (and doubtless the most active in propaganda and organization) were Jews who had put on the convenient mask of Calvinism at Antwerp. For example, “from an early period,” says Dr. Lucien Wolf, “the Marranos in Antwerp had taken an active part in the Reformation movement, and had given up their mask of Catholicism for a not less hollow pretense of Calvinism. The change will be readily understood. The simulation of Calvinism brought them ne friends, who, like them, were enemies of Rome, Spain, and the Inquisition. It helped them in their fight against the Holy Office, and for that reason was very welcome to them. Moreover, it was a form of Christianity which came nearer to their own simple Judaism. The result was that they became zealous and valuable allies of the Calvinists.” pp. 248-249.

There was something more in most Calvinist teaching than the desire for religious freedom and the reform of abuses. It was more like the ancient hatred which had followed the Catholic Church from her cradle, seeking not her reform but her utter destruction. Calvin himself was as ruthless in this regard as Mohammed. One of his letters to the English Protestants declares that those who refuse to give up the Roman Catholic faith must be put to the sword. {40} p. 249.

Note 40, ch. 13: Pastor, XV, introd., xlii, quoting text from Corp. Ref.. xli, 81: “merentur gladio ultore coerceri, com non in regem tantum insurgant, sed in Deum ipsum.”

And from Chapter XV, Catherine de’ Medici [1560].

During the weeks following the Colloquy, the storm of hate, which had so long been gathering, burst in all its fury. Almost simultaneously, as if by a concerted signal, well-organized bands of Calvinists fell upon the Catholic churches, convents, schools and libraries. At Montpellier they sacked all the sixty churches and convents, and put one hundred-fifty priest and monks to the sword.

At Nimes they made a great pile of statues and relics in front of the Cathedral, danced around it while the flames arose, yelled that they would have no more Mass or idolaters, and then wrecked and plundered the churches.….

Within a year the Calvinists, according to one of their own estimates, {19} murdered 4,000 priests, monks and nuns, expelled or maltreated 12,000 nuns, sacked 20,000 churches, and destroyed 2, 000 monasteries with their priceless libraries and works of art. The rare manuscript collection of the ancient monastery of Cluny was irreparably lost, with many others. Sacred vessels from the churches were melted into money to pay German mercenaries, who were urged to be ruthless. {20} - p .289.

Notes, ch. 15.
19. Albert le Mire: Nouvelle Collection de memoires relatif a l’histoire de France, ch. XI, p. 512. Cabrera [de Córdoba] says more than 9,000 religious and 3,000 priests killed, I, 299.
20. Cabrera, I, 299.

Philip II, William Thomas Walsh, books.google.com/books?id=5qUeAAAAMAAJ&q=%22William+Thomas+Walsh%22+inauthor:Walsh&dq=%22William+Thomas+Walsh%22+inauthor:Walsh&lr=&as_brr=0&pgis=1

catholicauthors.com/walsh.html

marianland.com/hist019.html

 

[Pinkyyy]

You could do just that…but then the problem will arise that a whole new round of polemics will ensue. For each and every item of “horrific whatever” that can be brought against the Catholic Church, an equal number can be brought against “Protestants”…

I haven’t known anyone “perfect”…at least not personally or in my time…but lets face it…if a Catholic does something its used against all Catholics… What if we used the old murderous ways of the “Reformists” (with pictures and historical documents) and used it against “Protestants/Reformists” to discredit everything they say?

You’re right to a point. However, it is somehow not fair for a “reformist or protestant”…regardless of denomination…to complain when a negative historical fact is thrown up is a bit disingenuous…given the number of items alleged against Catholicism…

So maybe the only answer is to graceful either accept history as it is for what it is, and move on, or even avoid the mention…but it has to be a cooperative effort, no?

I think we’re saying the same thing (kind of). I never said Protestants didn’t make mistakes. I mean, I am not out there posting pictures of things the RCC has done wrong like the example i gave above, so why is it being done about Luther?- because it gives the poster some sense of showing how right the RCC is and kind of attacking another religion.

Just as you said, the OP is taking pictures and using it to discredit Luteranism as a whole (at least that’s what I get from it). The RCC also complains when negative facts come out by saying forgive and forget b/c we are the true church (I mean being the true church is not a license to run around doing whatever they want and saying oh well, just forgive us we are still the true church) - and sometimes by trying to just throw it back into the Protestants saying “well, you should talk…look at Luther”.

It should be a cooperative effort. I mean, we can go around in circles and I can find on the internet pictures too reflecting the RCC in a bad way and post them - I would be doing the same things as the person who posted the pictures though and I wouldn’t do that. If we wouldn’t do that, why do it to us? That’s why I just don’t think this kind of stuff should be posted - against Protestants OR Catholics.

 

[Pinkyyy]

Rome did not hate anyone, Protestant or otherwise. Rather, the good members of the Church have always grieved for those who have erred and strayed, have always desired their return to the “unity of all nations” and the bond of peace.

But if there were abuses, we should all remember that the Church, like any organism when threatened by an invading organism (heresy, schism, etc.) was merely reacting in self-defense. Indeed, the Church was fighting for her very existence against, I’m sorry to say, violent Protestant mobs, goaded by the virulent and inflammatory words and works of men like Luther, Calvin et al.

Church officials were selling indulgences and Luther is the bad one? (obviously this is what you are illuding to saying that the “good” church members did not leave). I don’t call a man who righfully left a church abusing it’s power as a bad person. Anyone has the right to leave any organization they know is going against the teachings of Christ. Should he have sat back and did nothing? Being catholic does not mean they can do whatever they want and then say oops, we’re wrong but stay with us anyway because we’re still “the one true church”. By using the wording violent protestant mobs you make it sound like the RRC has a flowerly past - we know this is not true.

I love how you say “IF” there were abuses - I think even most catholics would admit that indulgences were abuses.

 

[estesbob]

Church officials were selling indulgences and Luther is the bad one? (obviously this is what you are illuding to saying that the “good” church members did not leave). I don’t call a man who righfully left a church abusing it’s power as a bad person. Anyone has the right to leave any organization they know is going against the teachings of Christ. Should he have sat back and did nothing? Being catholic does not mean they can do whatever they want and then say oops, we’re wrong but stay with us anyway because we’re still “the one true church”. By using the wording violent protestant mobs you make it sound like the RRC has a flowerly past - we know this is not true.

I love how you say “IF” there were abuses - I think even most catholics would admit that indulgences were abuses.

Let me see if I can follow your rationale here If a policeman is caugh taking money to fix tickets it’s okay to burn the police station down?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Let me see if I can follow your rationale here If a policeman is caugh taking money to fix tickets it’s okay to burn the police station down?

No; but if the people in charge of the police station were teaching that fixing tickets was a part of the system of ticketing and thereby encouraging officers to exploit the teaching by accepting bribes to do it, it would be worthy of reforming the police station and kicking out the ones who instituted the policy.

haha.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Well, there can only be *one *Church. And thus the teachings of all the separated churches must be judged by the teachings of this one Church.

Agreed. But division and disunity are certainly opposed to Christ and His gospel!

Rome did not hate anyone, Protestant or otherwise. Rather, the good members of the Church have always grieved for those who have erred and strayed, have always desired their return to the “unity of all nations” and the bond of peace.

LOL. Pius V rebuked Charles IX of France for failing to exterminate heretics (this was before the massacre of the 24 August 1572) . Very saintly.​

And people make a fuss about Calvin, with his “count” of one; killing one person is persecution - kill thousands, & you’re canonised.

But if there were abuses, we should all remember that the Church, like any organism when threatened by an invading organism (heresy, schism, etc.) was merely reacting in self-defense. Indeed, the Church was fighting for her very existence against, I’m sorry to say, violent Protestant mobs, goaded by the virulent and inflammatory words and works of men like Luther, Calvin et al.

That’s no excuse: Jesus did not tell the Church to burn, kill, & massacre - he did tell his disciples to turn the other cheek. So it does not matter one straw what anyone else was doing.​

Or does the Church’s failure to do what he said show that his teaching is just not applicable to real life ?

Allow me to cite a few passages from William Thomas Walsh’s Philip II.

Chapter XIII, The Spanish Inquisition Is Revived [1559].

Note 40, ch. 13: Pastor, XV, introd., xlii, quoting text from Corp. Ref.. xli, 81: “merentur gladio ultore coerceri, com non in regem tantum insurgant, sed in Deum ipsum.”

That is useless, because the author is unidentified, & because it could for all anyone knows be a Protestant quotation of a Catholic.​

And BTW, “cum” is spelt c-u-m, not “com”. Why can’t people quote Latin properly ?

And from Chapter XV, Catherine de’ Medici [1560].

Notes, ch. 15.
19. Albert le Mire: Nouvelle Collection de memoires relatif a l’histoire de France, ch. XI, p. 512. Cabrera [de Córdoba] says more than 9,000 religious and 3,000 priests killed, I, 299.
20. Cabrera, I, 299.

But are the figures reliable,or are they propagandistic exaggerations ? For all anyone knows, Cabrera might be a liar with no regard for the truth. What are the stats based on ? Even an honest man can be unreliable, for all his good intentions​

The total figure of 12,000 - assuming that the 3,000 are not included in the 9,000 - is suspiciously like that sometimes given for the number of Elizabethan Catholics put to death for their religion. If Cabrera was speaking only of France, it would be interesting to know how his total came to be applied to Catholics in England (if that is what happened).

Philip II, William Thomas Walsh, books.google.com/books?id=5qUeAAAAMAAJ&q=%22William+Thomas+Walsh%22+inauthor:Walsh&dq=%22William+Thomas+Walsh%22+inauthor:Walsh&lr=&as_brr=0&pgis=1

catholicauthors.com/walsh.html

marianland.com/hist019.html

 

[GUDRUN355]

Those wood cuts were probably commissioned to act much as today’s political cartoons. Personally, I think history of this sort is interesting. The subject matter is a little distasteful but after all, Luther wasn;t exactly a fan of the Papacy…

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Church officials were selling indulgences and Luther is the bad one? (obviously this is what you are illuding to saying that the “good” church members did not leave).

The “good” members I alluded to were those who opposed abuses, who kept the faith, who understood - unlike the “reformers” - that to reform an institution, one must first and foremost reform himself. Which brings us to the moral behavior of the reformers (but that’s another thread in itself).

Some churchmen were trafficking in indulgences. That was wrong, that was an abuse. But are there none in the Protestant churches who also abuse their office or power?

I don’t call a man who righfully left a church abusing it’s power as a bad person. Anyone has the right to leave any organization they know is going against the teachings of Christ.

Where in Scripture does it say anyone can “rightfully” leave the one Church??

Should he have sat back and did nothing?

Whoever said Luther should have done nothing? If there were abuses, he should have worked to correct them. But he certainly had no more authority than I to determine what is and is not true doctrine.

Being catholic does not mean they can do whatever they want and then say oops, we’re wrong but stay with us anyway because we’re still “the one true church”. By using the wording violent protestant mobs you make it sound like the RRC has a flowerly past - we know this is not true.

If the Catholic Church isn’t “the one true church,” which, in your opinion is?

Perhaps you can correct Augustine, who said:

“Furthermore, the Catholic Church alone is the body of Christ, of which He is the Head and Saviour of His body.” Ephesians 5:23.

– Letter 185:50 newadvent.org/fathers/1102185.htm

And I never even hinted that the Church had a “flowery past.” Matter of fact, one of my posts around here was this.

I love how you say “IF” there were abuses - I think even most catholics would admit that indulgences were abuses.

Indulgences were not the abuse; *trafficking *in them was. See the Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
( at least read the sections on Abuses, and Traffic in Indulgences).

 

[raumzeitmc2]

LOL. Pius V rebuked Charles IX of France for failing to exterminate heretics (this was before the massacre of the 24 August 1572) . Very saintly.​

Do you have a reference that charge against Pius V?

As for the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, let me again refer to Walsh.

The number of victims is disputed, ranging from several hundreds to several thousands. It grew with time….p. 535

In other cities the Huguenots were put to the sword on the following. In many places the Catholics refused to obey the royal orders, and protected the Huguenots. Thus it was at Dijon, Macon, Rouen, and the very Catholic city of Nantes…. Ibid.

Even Motley admits that the atrocity was essentially political, not religious, {19} a judgment to which the subsequent fate of the Guises adds weight….ibid.

Belloc attempts to explain the massacre as a retaliation for the cold-blooded massacre of Catholic nobles by the Huguenots at Pau three years before, after they had surrendered to Henry of Navarre and his mother, with the promise that their lives would be spared. {21} They were invited to a feast at the royal palace, and there slaughtered. But, as Belloc admits, the exact date of this “first Saint Bartholomew’s Eve massacre” is disputed. {22}

It cannot be denied, however, that for several years past the Catholics had had abundant evidence of the ruthless cruelty of their enemies, and of the insincerity of their claim to be fighting only for freedom of worship. It was the Calvinist, not the Catholics, who introduced

books.google.com/books?id=5qUeAAAAMAAJ&q=%22william+thomas+walsh%22&dq=%22william+thomas+walsh%22&lr=&pgis=1

And people make a fuss about Calvin, with his “count” of one; killing one person is persecution - kill thousands, & you’re canonised.

That’s no excuse: Jesus did not tell the Church to burn, kill, & massacre - he did tell his disciples to turn the other cheek. So it does not matter one straw what anyone else was doing.​

Or does the Church’s failure to do what he said show that his teaching is just not applicable to real life ?

You’ve got it all twisted up! The Church, like individuals, has every right to defend itself from unjust and violent aggressors.

As for Calvin, here’s a little history you may not be familiar with. The historian Preserved Smith writes about life under Calvin’s totalitarian Geneva:

The city was divided into quarters, and some of the elders visited every house at least once a year and passed in review the whole life, actions, speech, and opinions of the inmates.

The houses of the citizens were made of glass; and the vigilant eye of the Consistory, served by a multitude of spies, was on them all the time. In a way this espionage but took the place of the Catholic confessional. A joke, a gesture was enough to bring a man under suspicion. The Elders sat as a regular court, hearing complaints and examining witnesses. It is true that they could inflict only spiritual punishments, such as public censure, penance, excommunication, or forcing the culprit to demand pardon in church on his knees.

But when the Consistory thought necessary, it could invoke the aid of the civil courts and the judgment was seldom doubtful. Among the capital crimes were adultery, blasphemy, witchcraft, and heresy.

Punishments for all offences were astonishingly and increasingly heavy. During the years 1542-6 there were, in this little town of 16,000 people no less than fifty-eight executions and seventy-six banishments. Pp. 170-171.

If we ask how much was actually accomplished by this minute regulation accompanied by extreme severity in the enforcement of morals various answers are given. When the Italian reformer Bernardino Occhino visited Geneva in 1542 he testified that cursing and swearing, unchastity and sacrilege were unknown; that there were neither lawsuits nor simony nor murder nor party spirit, but that universal benevolence prevailed.

Again in 1556 John Knox said that Geneva was

“the most perfect school of Christ that ever was on earth since the days of the apostles.”

“In other places,” he continued, “I confess Christ to be truly preached, but manners and religion so sincerely reformed I have not seen in any besides.”

But if we turn from these personal to an examination of the acts of the Consistory we get a very different impression. The records of Geneva show *more cases of vice after than before *the Reformation. P. 174.

The Age of the Reformation, Preserved Smith, Published, H. Holt and Company, 1920
books.google.com/books?id=Xtjm1-eNxC8C&pg=PA171&dq=%22no+less+than+fifty-eight+executions+and+seventy-six+banishments+%22&lr=&as_brr=0