Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[EvangelCatholic]

Thanks for the excerpt, interesting. It doesn’t though answer the question I posed, and I really didn’t expect an answer because I don’t think there is one.

As far as my studies over the years have gone, I have not found an “official teaching of the church” (Topper’s words) on justification previous to Trent, so when Topper assumes “what Luther was exposed to was not the official teaching of the Church,” this is, once again, anachronism. Previous to Trent there was not one official dogmatic understanding of justification. The Reformation provoked Trent to address this.

Interesting about Trent as well (at least to me), Luther wasn’t named, which is why there’s no dogmatic pronouncement as to how any individual catholic should think or feel about Luther. Hence even in this entire discussion the opinions are so varied.

There is this statement of over 30 years ago by both Catholic and Lutheran scholars/ bishops on Martin Luther

Martin Luther
Witness to Jesus Christ
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_luther.html

Excerpts:
4.In the churches of the Reformation and in theology, the rediscovery of Luther began in the early days of this century. Soon afterwards, intensive study of the person of Luther and his work started on the Catholic side. This study has made notable scholarly contributions to Reformation and Luther research and, together with the growing ecumenical understanding, has paved the way toward a more positive Catholic attitude to Luther. We see on both sides a lessening of outdated, polemically colored images of Luther. He is beginning to be honored in common as a witness to the gospel, a teacher in the faith and a herald of spiritual renewal.

5.The recent celebrations of the 450th anniversary of the Augsburg Confession (1980) have made an essential contribution to this perspective. This confession of faith is inconceivable without the person and theology of Luther. Furthermore, the insight that the Augsburg Confession reflects “a full accord on fundamental and central truths” (Pope John Paul II, Nov 17th, 1980) between Catholics and Lutherans facilitates the common affirmation of fundamental perceptions of Luther.

6.Luther’s call for church reform, a call to repentance, is still relevant for us. He summons us to listen anew to the gospel, to recognize our own unfaithfulness to the gospel and to witness credibly to it. This cannot happen today without attention to the other church and to its witness and without the surrender of polemical stereotypes and the search for reconciliation.

11.In our time, Luther research and biblical studies on both sides have again opened the way for a mutual understanding of the central concerns of the Lutheran Reformation. Awareness of the historical conditionedness of all forms of expression and thought has contributed to the widespread recognition among Catholics that Luther’s ideas, particularly on justification, are a legitimate form of Christian theology. Thus in summarizing what had already been jointly affirmed by Catholic and Lutheran theologians in 1972 (“The Gospel and the Church”), the Catholic Lutheran statement on the Augsburg Confession says that: “A broad consensus emerges in the doctrine of justification, which was decisively important for the Reformation: it is solely by grace and by faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit in us that we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit who renews our hearts and equips us for and calls us to good works” (“All Under One Christ,” 1980).

12.As witness to the gospel, Luther proclaimed the biblical message of God’s judgment and grace, of the scandal and the power of the cross, of the lostness of human beings and of God’s act of salvation. As an “unworthy evangelist of our Lord Jesus Christ,” Luther points beyond his own person in order to confront us all the more inescapably with the promise and the claim of the gospel he confessed.

22.There has developed in our century � first of all in German-speaking areas-an intensive Catholic re-evaluation of Luther the man and of his Reformation concerns. It is widely recognized that he was justified in attempting to reform the theology and the abuses in the church of his time and that his fundamental belief � justification given to us by Christ without any merit of our own � does not in any way contradict genuine Catholic tradition, such as is found, for example, in St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

23.This new attitude to Luther is reflected in what Cardinal Willebrands said at the Lutheran World Federation’s Fifth Assembly: “Who … would still deny that Martin Luther was a deeply religious person who with honesty and dedication sought for the message of the gospel? Who would deny that in spite of the fact that he fought against the Roman Catholic Church and the Apostolic See � and for the sake of truth one must not remain silent about this � he retained a considerable part of the old Catholic faith? Indeed, is it not true that the Second Vatican Council has even implemented requests that were first expressed by Martin Luther, among others, and as a result of which many aspects of Christian faith and life now find better expression than they did before? To be able to say this in spite of all the differences is a reason for great joy and much hope.”

 

[TertiumQuid]

There is this statement of over 30 years ago by both Catholic and Lutheran scholars/ bishops on Martin Luther

I’m familiar with this statement, as well as some of the others. Pope John Paul II was an advocate of ecumenical relationships, as are many catholics, and his influence weighed heavily on the work produced in the early 1980’s between lutherans and catholics. On the other hand, there are some who are less enthusiastic about ecumenical harmony at the expense of theological precision. These joint declarations are not dogmatic pronouncements, but do suggest to me that there is a difference in catholic scholarship towards Luther and the various negative conclusions expressed by particular catholic laymen on discussion boards.

Of interest to you on the joint declarations is an overview put together by Gregory Sobolewski, Martin Luther, Roman Catholic Prophet (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2001). The author provides an interesting overview of the history of scholarly catholic opinion on Luther, including the interactions with the lutherans.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

I think you are right on the mark regarding Luther’s scrupulosity. In addition, our friend Staupitz played a role in trying to help Luther with his scrupulosity.

Althought Staupitz tried to help Luther overcome the severe scrupulosity, Luther needed the assurance of salvation which the hope of salvation would not. Staupitz’s efforts to comfort Luther’s anguish and to alleviate the fears of predestination and torments of conscience was fully Catholic teaching concerning justification and Staupitz rejected Luther’s theology on “fiducal faith” ( justified by faith alone) However, Staupitz accepted by 1518 that the protest of Luther was aimed not only art Church abuses but also at Church doctrines and began inexorably to lost whatever degree of attention he possessed for Luther’s theology. Staupitz tried very hard to convince Luther to retract his theology and attack on the Church, but was unsuccessful due to Luther’s stubbornness .

In fact, Luther was so scrupulous that he would finish a six hour confession and would think as he left “That was a good confession!” Then he would turn around and have to go back in to confess the sin of pride.

“Luther would repeat a confession and, to be sure of including everything, would review his entire life until the confessor grew weary and exclaimed, “Man, God is not angry with you. You are angry with God. Don’t you know that God commands you to hope?
This assiduous confessing certainly succeeded in clearing up any major transgressions. The leftovers with which Luther kept trotting in appeared to Stauptiz (his superior and confessor) to be only the scruples of a sick soul. ‘Look here,’ said he, ‘if you expect Christ to forgive you, come in with something to forgive – paracide, blasphemy, adultery – instead of these peccadillos. But Luther’s question was not whether his sins were big or little, but whether they had been confessed. **The great difficulty which he encountered was to be sure that everything had been recalled. He learned from experience the cleverness of memory in protecting the ego, and he was frightened when after six hours of confessing he could still go out and think of something else which had eluded his most conscientious scrutiny.” **Bainton (who is as ‘kind’ to Luther as any modern writer), pg. 35-6

Here we learn that Father Staupitz, Luther’s superior and confessor considered his confessional habits to be evidence of a ‘sick soul’. And yet - it was Staupitz who decided that Luther should study for his doctorate (as a cure for his emotional problems), and THEN, it was (John) Staupitz who assigned Luther to be a Professor at University of Wittenberg.

Luther’s ‘issues’ with confession are a rich treasury from which to determine the truth about Luther’s mental health and the validity of his radical doctrines. Lutheran Professor and Biographer Kittleson has said that **Luther’s conscience was an ‘unforgiving monster’, **and that in response to Luther’s ‘outright hatred of the righteous God’, “Stauptiz once commanded him to go out and commit a real sin.” (pg. 84) Marius calls this an ‘extreme form of scrupulosity’ (pg. 59). Lutheran Professor Albrecht Beutel wrote that “**Luther tormented himself with an almost maniacal urge to confess…” **(Companion, pg. 6)

None of these statements exactly inspire confidence in Luther’s fitness as a Theologian.

Heiko Oberman states:

“Luther’s reminiscences permit one to conclude that he was the very sort of person to fall into the fearful self-doubt the handbooks describe as the sickness of scrupulosity.** A man with these proclivities should not have become a monk and certainly not an Observant mendicant monk, one would assume today.”** Pg, 177

“Judging from Luther’s later remarks about himself in this period (1507-1517), we may picture a zealous young monk, caught up in the implacable routines of the monastery, following them scrupulously, trying to prove to himself that he was doing his best to please God. He said later on that he drove his confessors nearly crazy when he took the sacrament of penance and babbled out every sin he could imagine. When he left the confessional at last, the thought would strike him, “What a fine confession you just made,” and he could recognize the deadly sin of pride – which had to be confessed. Back he would go to the confessional. This extreme form of scrupulosity was well known at the time, and an experienced older priest such as Staupitz would have dealt with it in a gently reassuring way that Luther recalled later with such gratitude.” Marius pg. 59

Obviously Martin was not the picture of mental stability during his days in the monastery. As Reformed Biographer Heiko Oberman points out, he should not have become a monk.

I would also suggest that he should not have been allowed to refute the teachings of the Church, but then, he was NOT allowed. He did that on nothing more than his own authority.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[TertiumQuid]

Heiko Oberman states:

“Luther’s reminiscences permit one to conclude that he was the very sort of person to fall into the fearful self-doubt the handbooks describe as the sickness of scrupulosity.** A man with these proclivities should not have become a monk and certainly not an Observant mendicant monk, one would assume today.”** Pg, 177

Obviously Martin was not the picture of mental stability during his days in the monastery. As Reformed Biographer Heiko Oberman points out, he should not have become a monk.

Is this what Oberman says? Here’s the full quote (note the sentence in bold):

“Even the earliest sources demonstrate Luther’s awareness of God’s holiness and His wrath against sin. Luther’s reminiscences permit one to conclude that he was the very sort of person to fall into the fearful self-doubt the handbooks describe as the sickness of scrupulosity. A man with these proclivities should not have become a monk and certainly not an Observant mendicant monk, one would assume today.** But in Luther’s time the contrary was the case: so unsettled a person, it was thought, should chose the safe path and enter a monastery. **Luther was really able to try out the salutary and salvational methods of his time, to the point of desperation. He endeavored to observe the Augustinian rule by means of extreme self-discipline, fasting, prayer, study, and vigils. When he had done what he could to be a worthy recipient of the sacraments of penance and the Lord’s Supper, God would not deny him grace" (p.178).

Context.

 

[guanophore]

Luther’s ‘issues’ with confession are a rich treasury from which to determine the truth about Luther’s mental health and the validity of his radical doctrines.

I see that you have rejected my challenge to put out your points and allow the reader to draw a conclusion. You just can’t resist drawing the conclusion for your reader, can you?

Although all history is a rich treasury, you cannot “determine the truth” about Luther’s, or anyone else’s “mental health” by their issues with confession.

I will be the first to support that Luther was not a paragon of mental health, but diagnoising people’s mental state 500 years after they are dead, based on “issues with confession” is just a far reach.

Furthermore, the “validity” of any doctrines he may have espoused are not determined by his mental health. Even the demons could speak the Truth, and the most psychotic person can do so as well. You are trying to use the poisoned well approach, which is not a good idea, given the amount of Lutheran doctrine that has been affirmed by the CC.

I agree that Luther’s personal needs influenced his ideas about doctrine, but to determine the validity of what he believed based on his “issues with confession” is a bridge too far.

 “**Luther tormented himself with an almost maniacal urge to confess…” **(Companion, pg. 6)

I would venture that the majority of American Catholics are in dire need of a little of this maniacal cordial.

None of these statements exactly inspire confidence in Luther’s fitness as a Theologian.

Here again you are summarizing with your opinion. It seems that you are primarily trying to convince yourself about Luther, which is fine. It appears you have a personal need for it.

““Judging from Luther’s later remarks about himself in this period (1507-1517), we may picture a zealous young monk, caught up in the implacable routines of the monastery, following them scrupulously, trying to prove to himself that he was doing his best to please God.

You know, of all the afflictions one can have in life, it seems to me that there are much more damaging ones. Many persons raised in the kind of environment that produces such conditions later in life become antisocial felons.

This extreme form of scrupulosity was well known at the time, and an experienced older priest such as Staupitz would have dealt with it in a gently reassuring way that Luther recalled later with such gratitude.” Marius pg. 59

Makes one wonder what he might have been like on a little OCD meds!

I would also suggest that he should not have been allowed to refute the teachings of the Church, but then, he was NOT allowed. He did that on nothing more than his own authority.

His need to work out his issues, just like yours, became public in a time, place, and manner that had sweeping social and religious consequences. There was a convergence of political and economic factors surrounding his ideas that precipitated a split that had been forming for centuries.

 

[guanophore]

Is this what Oberman says? Here’s the full quote (note the sentence in bold):

“Even the earliest sources demonstrate Luther’s awareness of God’s holiness and His wrath against sin. Luther’s reminiscences permit one to conclude that he was the very sort of person to fall into the fearful self-doubt the handbooks describe as the sickness of scrupulosity. A man with these proclivities should not have become a monk and certainly not an Observant mendicant monk, one would assume today.** But in Luther’s time the contrary was the case: so unsettled a person, it was thought, should chose the safe path and enter a monastery. **Luther was really able to try out the salutary and salvational methods of his time, to the point of desperation. He endeavored to observe the Augustinian rule by means of extreme self-discipline, fasting, prayer, study, and vigils. When he had done what he could to be a worthy recipient of the sacraments of penance and the Lord’s Supper, God would not deny him grace" (p.178).

Context.

Wow. That is quite an indictment about the biased presentation of the texts! One has to wonder if all the quotes posted have been similarly taken out of context. How shameful.

 

[Topper17]

Hi James,

Even though I have stated very clearly that we will not become dialogue partners, you continue to address me as if you expect that I will respond. You should not. I explained my reasoning in post number 473, which you just linked us to (below).

So, based on this, perhaps you can now explain what Brecht is saying on page 194. Rather than take the opportunity to show that you interpreted Brecht correctly, you took the opportunity to make the topic about me, rather than the facts.

That being said, there is one particular issue which we might delve into together to see if there is enough common ground upon which to actually engage in an honest dialogue.

In a recent post to me you said: “What interests me is the factual information on the Reformation.” (since deleted)

On this issue we agree. In the interest of finding some common ground, I would like to propose that we work together to uncover the factual information on a specific issue, one in which we have both expressed a particular interest.

In post number 333 I made the following comment.

In fact, by 1530, he (Luther) was recommending the execution of Anabaptists. This began in 1528 when he recommended that seditious Anabaptists be executed, but by 1530, execution was the ‘solution’ for even those whose only ‘crime’ was a belief that did not suit Luther. In fact, there actually were executions in Wittenberg in the 1530’s during Luther’s reign there.

In response to that comment, you replied in post number 347:

I’d like to have some clarification on this point, if possible. I don’t recall Luther being elected to political office or having a political reign in Wittenberg. As far as I know, he was an influential preacher and a theologian in Wittenberg in an age in which the church and state had a close relationship. Nor do I recall Luther specifically having individuals executed in Wittenberg in the 1530’s. I am aware of some people being executed for witchcraft in Wittenberg in the early 1540’s, and I’m familiar with the severe interrogations of some Anabaptists in Wittenberg in the 1530’s.

As someone always willing to learn (or to be reminded of what I’ve forgotten), I’d like to know (or be reminded) exactly who Luther had executed in Wittenberg in the 1530’s. While it certainly is within the realm of possibility that the secular authorities of Wittenberg during the 1530’s carried out capital punishment, I don’t recall this actually happening in the 1530’s, or more specifically, that Luther was involved with the carrying out of executions during the 1530’s, especially against Anabaptists.
Thanks.

I know that I have read an account somewhere that depicted the execution in the 1530’s of either 4 or 6 Anabaptists in Saxony. Of course it could be more. Normally I can find the things that I have read pretty easily, but I can’t locate this information and it is bugging me. In the interest of discovering the ‘factual information on the Reformation’ as you put it, I would like to ask you if you have come across any information on the execution of Anabaptists in Saxony since you asked me for clarification on the 17th.

How about if we both search out the facts of this particular situation and report what we find back here on this thread? Maybe this will be a way to inspire the trust that is so necessary to honest dialogue.

Topper

 

[TertiumQuid]

I know that I have read an account somewhere that depicted the execution in the 1530’s of either 4 or 6 Anabaptists in Saxony. Of course it could be more. Normally I can find the things that I have read pretty easily, but I can’t locate this information and it is bugging me. In the interest of discovering the ‘factual information on the Reformation’ as you put it, I would like to ask you if you have come across any information on the execution of Anabaptists in Saxony since you asked me for clarification on the 17th.

There is information about pertaining to executions in Saxony in the 1530’s. It’s fairly easy to document that the magisterial Reformers advocated a state / church relationship in which heresy and those causing societal unrest would face extreme punishment, including the death penalty. It’s also easy to document the persecution of these people in Protestant lands, including Lutheran lands. I’ve yet to find though any documentation for Luther’s role in public executions in Wittenberg in the 1530’s, or any actual public executions in Wittenberg in the 1530’s.

You said “Wittenberg” specifically and 1530 specifically, and that Luther was in “reign” there specifically hence over-seeing these executions in a role of power. That is a specific place, a specific time, and a specific role.

How about if we both search out the facts of this particular situation and report what we find back here on this thread? Maybe this will be a way to inspire the trust that is so necessary to honest dialogue.

If you want to change it now to Saxony, simply admit you were in error previously. That would be a good start for you.

 

[guanophore]

How about if we both search out the facts of this particular situation and report what we find back here on this thread? Maybe this will be a way to inspire the trust that is so necessary to honest dialogue.

Topper

 

[TertiumQuid]

Even though I have stated very clearly that we will not become dialogue partners, you continue to address me as if you expect that I will respond. You should not.

As I see it, the irony is that even if you don’t respond to what I’ve posted, your non-response actually serves as a revealing response. So, either way, I’m satisfied that my time here has not been wasted.

 

[Annie39]

There is information about pertaining to executions in Saxony in the 1530’s. It’s fairly easy to document that the magisterial Reformers advocated a state / church relationship in which heresy and those causing societal unrest would face extreme punishment, including the death penalty. It’s also easy to document the persecution of these people in Protestant lands, including Lutheran lands. I’ve yet to find though any documentation for Luther’s role in public executions in Wittenberg in the 1530’s, or any actual public executions in Wittenberg in the 1530’s.

You said “Wittenberg” specifically and 1530 specifically, and that Luther was in “reign” there specifically hence over-seeing these executions in a role of power. That is a specific place, a specific time, and a specific role.

If you want to change it now to Saxony, simply admit you were in error previously. That would be a good start for you.

You don’t see the connection of people being executed for not believing in Luther’s doctrine and Luther? Do you believe that Stalin personally killed for his cause?

 

[TertiumQuid]

You don’t see the connection of people being executed for not believing in Luther’s doctrine and Luther? Do you believe that Stalin personally killed for his cause?

Hi Annie39,

I said specifically:

“There is information about pertaining to executions in Saxony in the 1530’s. It’s fairly easy to document that the magisterial Reformers advocated a state / church relationship in which heresy and those causing societal unrest would face extreme punishment, including the death penalty. It’s also easy to document the persecution of these people in Protestant lands, including Lutheran lands.”

The same though could be said for those living in catholic-controlled areas as well in Europe in the 16th Century.

My concern is really not with who killed who (because the 16th Century was a bloody period), but rather with the assertion that specifically in Wittenberg specifically in the 1530’s and specifically with Luther “reigning” in Wittenberg that executions were carried out.

 

[SyroMalankara]

You don’t see the connection of people being executed for not believing in Luther’s doctrine and Luther? Do you believe that Stalin personally killed for his cause?

I don’t think any of the usually accused Popes personally impaled or torched anyone by their own hand either… so what:shrug:

 

[Peter_J]

guanophore, Topper17, TertiumQuid (and possibly Annie and one or two others), you can take this with a grain of salt, since I haven’t been reading much of what you’ve been saying to each other; but I have to ask (even if it may be “butting” in ) does it really take so many posts to say what you want to each other? I find it a smidgen puzzling.

 

[PRmerger]

I would venture that the majority of American Catholics are in dire need of a little of this maniacal cordial.

Indeed.

Not to mention the majority of American Christians.

 

[Annie39]

guanophore, Topper17, TertiumQuid (and possibly Annie and one or two others), you can take this with a grain of salt, since I haven’t been reading much of what you’ve been saying to each other; but I have to ask (even if it may be “butting” in ) does it really take so many posts to say what you want to each other? I find it a smidgen puzzling.

You certainly have a right to butt in. And your point is a valid one but it seems that many a thread on CAF goes on and on. Even now I’m about to prepare to reply to another poster.

Annie

 

[Annie39]

Hi Annie39,

I said specifically:

“There is information about pertaining to executions in Saxony in the 1530’s. It’s fairly easy to document that the magisterial Reformers advocated a state / church relationship in which heresy and those causing societal unrest would face extreme punishment, including the death penalty. It’s also easy to document the persecution of these people in Protestant lands, including Lutheran lands.”

The same though could be said for those living in catholic-controlled areas as well in Europe in the 16th Century.

My concern is really not with who killed who (because the 16th Century was a bloody period), but rather with the assertion that specifically in Wittenberg specifically in the 1530’s and specifically with Luther “reigning” in Wittenberg that executions were carried out.

Hi TQ

Yes, you are correct. Although most of the deaths for heresy was carried out by the Spanish government I’m aware of at least one pope who was in agreement with it. There are many people who defend this practice because the people who spread heresy are endangering many people’s souls which is more egregious than killing their bodies. I’m willing to believe that this is what gave the idea to the Germans. If we were discussing this topic further you and I may be on the same page. I’m against torture of any kind. But the Pope was not setting up his own religion. Knowledgeable Catholic will readily admit that there were many evil popes and many evil lay Catholics. I was a protestant for many years and I can tell you that we all have one thing in common we are a peopled by human beings. There are kind people, and jerks in both Catholic and protestant churches. For the most part the Pastors of the Protestant Churches that I attended were very hard working kind people but the same can be said about the Catholic Priests that I know. We are especially blessed in our town because we are chock full of good and hardworking Priests. The question is, did Luther or Calvin or any of the other men who broke from the Church that Jesus founded on the Rock, Peter have the authority to do so and what evidence is there to confirm this?

Jesus as you know was a Jew. There was wide spread corruption in Judaism not only in His time but all through the history of the Jews. But Jesus not only did not leave Judaism but He was the perfect Jew and He fulfilled the Mosaic Law and established a New Covenant. After that the Apostles performed many miracles to prove that they were from God as they spread the Good News. Below is part of a post I wrote to Jon a while back that is appropriate here.

“you know Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant and established a New Covenant in His Blood. But even John did not know if Jesus was the Messiah or not in Luke: 7 we read “Art thou he that art to come; or look we for another? [20] And when the men were come unto him, they said: John the Baptist hath sent us to thee, saying: Art thou he that art to come; or look we for another?
[21] (And in that same hour, he cured many of their diseases, and hurts, and evil spirits: and to many that were blind he gave sight.) [22] And answering, he said to them: Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen: the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are made clean, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, to the poor the gospel is preached: [23] And blessed is he whosoever shall not be scandalized in me”
It wasn’t just everyone who could be the Messiah (or one sent by the Messiah) and there had to be proof that Jesus was He who was to come. He didn’t ask anyone to take his word for it. In fact even the disciples performed miracles in Jesus’ name.
What evidence do you have that Luther could set up a new Church with a different doctrines using the Bible that was canonized by the Catholic Church in order for all the Bishops to be using the same books in the Liturgy? Where are his miracles? Where are the miracles of any person who set up a Church against the True Church?” (Parenthesis added)

Annie

 

[steido01]

What evidence do you have that Luther could set up a new Church

Luther, and Lutherans, did not then - and do not now - believe themselves to have created a new church. There is one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Are we a different earthly corporation? Much of the time. But we do not believe ourselves to have separated ourselves from the faith.

with a different doctrines

Doctrines that were used by Catholics, even if a minority of Catholics, before Trent.

using the Bible that was canonized by the Catholic Church

The current canon was not made official by Trent until after Luther’s death. Until that time, any Catholic could dispute portions of the Bible, and many did (including Luther’s enemies!). Surely you aren’t holding a man to standards which weren’t set until after his death?

Where are his miracles?

You’ve asked this absurdity several times. I do not understand your fascination with this. Why would miracles be required of Luther? Luther is no messiah. He was an intelligent and sinful man.

 

[guanophore]

As I see it, the irony is that even if you don’t respond to what I’ve posted, your non-response actually serves as a revealing response. So, either way, I’m satisfied that my time here has not been wasted.

It has certainly not been wasted on others of us who are reading the thread.

 

[guanophore]

You don’t see the connection of people being executed for not believing in Luther’s doctrine and Luther? Do you believe that Stalin personally killed for his cause?

Certainly there were plenty of Catholics killed for not embracing Reformed Doctrine in many areas.

But Luther did not have an office / official authority like Stalin and he never had a “reign” of any kind.

The German princes were happy to dispatch the monasteries and the Catholic Bishops without Luther having to say anything.

I don’t think any of the usually accused Popes personally impaled or torched anyone by their own hand either… so what:shrug:

The point is that Topper weaves opinion into the facts and misrepresents some of the facts to bolster his point. This method devalues all the fine research done, and is a very poor apologetic method, since when the readers (such as myself) find out what has been done, it leaves one in a position of having to question everything.