Was it wrong to post these scandalous woodcuts by Luther?

[raumzeitmc2]

Continuing with Preserved Smith from previous post.

The minutes of the trial are painful reading. It was conducted on both sides with unbecoming violence. Among other expressions used by Calvin the public prosecutor were these that he regarded Servetus’s defence as no better than the braying of an ***, and that the prisoner was like a villainous cur wiping his muzzle. Servetus answered in the same tone his spirit unbroken by abuse and by his confinement in a horrible dungeon, where he suffered from hunger, cold, vermin, and disease.

He was found guilty of heresy and sentenced to be burnt with slow fire Calvin said that he tried to alter the manner of execution but there is not a shred of evidence in the minutes of the trial or elsewhere that he did so Possibly if he made the request it was purely formal as were similar petitions for mercy made by the Roman inquisitors. P. Smith, P. 178.

Strengthened by his victory over heresy Calvin now had the chance to annihilate his opponents. On May 15 1555 he accused a number of them of treason and provided proof by ample use of the rack.

With the party of Libertines completely broken, Calvin ruled from this time forth with a rod of iron. The new Geneva was so cowed and subservient that the town council dared not install a new sort of heating apparatus without asking the permission of the theocrat. But a deep rancor smoldered under the surface.

“Our incomparable theologian Calvin” wrote Ambrose Blaurer to Bullinger, “labors under such hatred of some whom he obscures by his light that he is considered the worst of heretics by them.” Ibid, p. 179.

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

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 ?

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​

A typo on my part. As for Walsh’s sources, all I can say is that Walsh was a very highly respected historian, and presumably he had his information correct. But yes, anyone, even the most sincere, can err.

Now regarding the Walsh reference to Calvin calling for the death of all Catholics, he was referencing these words of Calvin.

[T]here are two kinds of rebels who have risen up against the King and the Estates of the Kingdom. (1) The one, a fantastical sort of persons, who, under color of the Gospel, would put all into confusion. (2) The others are persons who persist in the superstitions of the Roman Antichrist. Both alike deserve to be repressed by the sword …

Calvin to the Protector Somerset, October 22, 1548.

Letters of John Calvin By Jean Calvin, Jules Bonnet, David Constable, Published by T. Constable, 1857, vol. 2, p. 173.

books.google.com/books?id=tlUYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA173&dq=%22deserve+to+be+repressed+by+the+sword%22&lr=

There is a quote whose authenticity I used to very much doubt. But now however, after having become better read in Reformation history, I am somewhat more inclined toward the truth of the following statement, allegedly the words of Martin Bucer (though everyone of good will should withhold final judgment until an exact source can be cited.).

“Calvin is a true mad dog. The man is wicked, and he judges of people according as he loves or hates them.”

Quoted in,

The Champions of the Church: Their Crimes and Persecutions, By De Robigne Mortimer Bennett, p. 600.
books.google.com/books?id=YsEPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA600&dq=%22a+true+mad+dog%22+calvin&lr=

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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.

I agre with Paul. It’s not defamation of Luther to publish a true statement. If Luther commissioned the carvings at issue, then the publication of that fact is not defamatory. And I’m fairly certain that even back then the people understood political and religious satire when they viewed it - even when it was crass. So the carvings would not even be said to defame the papacy, although they certainly do lampoon it.

I’m not sure what the images prove or disprove except perhaps the level of heated rancour that existed at the time of the Reformation. It is undisputed that Luther despised what he viewed as a corrupted papacy. I’m sure one could look hard and find some pretty nasty artwork that lampoons the reformers and their ideals But such images would not further the case against protestantism, even if they were shown to be true.

Peace,
-Robert