Why do Protestant Apologists feel the need to lie about history and the Catholic Church?

[Nino]

Because they were wrong. And as a matter of fact, as an Anglican who is a Wesleyan by theology and has some involvement with the United Methodist Church, your premise is not entirely true of the “founders” of either of my “denominations.” The reasons for Canterbury’s split from Rome were complex, but at no point did the Church of England take the official stance that Rome’s doctrines were heretical. The Articles do condemn certain “Romish” doctrines, but at no point were these doctrinal disagreements cited on the Anglican side as the reason for separation.

The case of Wesley is clearer. He insisted that what was most important for Methodists was what they shared with other Christians, not what divided them from others. Indeed, he went so far as to claim that Methodists had no distinctive doctrines of their own, which wasn’t entirely true.

I don’t claim that your statement doesn’t apply to Anglicans and Methodists at all. As I said, the Articles to register some sharp disagreements with Rome, and Wesley clearly said that he believed in private judgment and that the split from Rome was justified. However, you would have a lot more traction making this argument against Lutherans or Calvinists. The form(s) of Protestantism with which I identify myself have historically distinguished themselves by an attempt to emphasize commonalities with other Christians (this is why both traditions have found it particularly hard to resist liberal theology).

Edwin

 

[Nino]

sure…what happened in Germany was that Luther joined with the secular establishment the landowners,counts,dukes,etc and using the pretense that Germany is for Germans not Romans…the order was given…throw them out…remove all of the gold and silver and art paintings…ship them back to Rome.(yeh sure) and so State religions were born…as in England,same thing…hummph taking orders from an Italian Bishop…why we britishers rule the high seas and our empire ,the sun never sets etc…true,the King of England was so gentle towards St.Tom Moore and LaColombia etc etc.the tower of London was really a niteclub…one could hear the lighthearted banter for miles…thats why england and the american south slave holders were on the same side…when one can judge the good book by ones own ‘conscience’ well its amazing how that ‘conscience’ can be so manipulated that somehow the moral compass always turns towards ones certain body parts and self discipline goes out the window…well merry ole england…finally got back to we colonists anyway…they shipped us the bedbugs musical group…all in good humor…Nino

 

[RobHom]

I haven’t heard anyone here call the pope the whore of Babylon. That’s a new one to me. As far as the Reformation goes, it is merely one’s opinion of what it really was and means today. I happen to believe it restored God’s Word again and gave it respect and meaning that it had obviously lost.

And you have just stated merely what is you opinion on the matter. I have heard the pope referred to in many durogatory manners on other forum sites. I doubt that you will see that occur here as it would probably be deleted immediately since this site is a Catholic site…

You may disagree and that’s fine.

And as long as you hold to the understanding that “thats fine” goes both ways…

The Body of Christ is alive and well and if it weren’t, we would all be in trouble.

Yes this is true, but many are in serious peril…

 

[RobHom]

I would actually prefer to know exactly what you are accusing folks of being misinformed of. I see this very very often here, but yet you have miserably failed in producing what it is that you are calling propaganda. Do folks here say that Catholic’s worship Mary or worship a piece of bread? I don’t think so. We have undoubtedly gotten way past Understanding Catholicism 101.

While maybe you have not said those things you have apparently missed out on many posts in different threads right here on this site recently. Or are you just ignoring the obvious? Those two allegations are “common bleatings” that surface quickly out of the mouths of anti-Catholics.

Not so? in re; propaganda?. I am not going to bother posting the links, but I can suggest that you google the words “contender ministries”… you want lies, misconceptions, propaganda… click on any of the search links…you’ll find 410,000 listings.

The truth is: If you “understood” Catholicism, you would not be carrying on as you, and other protestants do. You would cease with the diatribes, and become Catholics, and have peace in your heart and the fullness of the TRUTH

 

[RobHom]

You seem to think you know alot about what Luther would say. ****

The fact of the matter is…WE DO!! In fact we know exactly what he said… he was a prolific writer and the Catholic Church and the Lutheran’s have saved probably every scrap of everything he ever wrote…and there is literally tons of it accessible on the web.

Need help finding it? Just “google” Martin Luther and add the words on the specific subject…lots of hits with links.

One of my favorites is this one:

davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm

If you ask nicely, and need more help… I can give you some more links full of information regarding Luther…

 

[RobHom]

Both sides keep saying the same kinds of things. I am starting to call this kind of comment “whiner’s theology;” or perhaps, “he said, she said” theology. “No I never!” “Yes you did!” “No I never!” “Yes you did!” “No I never!” “Yes you did!”

And it seems that its the “theology” to which you espouse.

Do you know how many different denominations, including your’s all say the same kind of rhetoric about how “the real Bible” is known and understood only by them? How only they are “authorized by God” to determine truth; and to decipher His Word? Being talked to like this makes me feel like it’s certain Catholics who are lying about Protestants; else why would the Catholic side keep trying to elicit pity parties and martyr complexes like this?

And of course your statement is “self inclusive”? I suppose your “denomination” does not make the very same claim? Your point is moot. Pity parties, martyr complexes? You’re slipping as you apparently aren’t so sure of your position as you think…because you are slipping down that greasy slope of resorting to insults as “justification”. Not pretty.

The part of the Bible that you say has been stripped away by Protestants cannot be proven to have anything in it which would say that the current Bible used by most of the world is not complete. The King James Bible which I use has all the necessary ingredients for salvation; and I would challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

I would challenge you to prove otherwise, and also prove that “most of the world” uses the KJV. You apparently are unawares of religious demographics worldwide. Heres proof: adherents.com/adh_rb.html and thats just one source.
And this link provides some “very interesting” information regarding the religious demographics of the US: adherents.com/rel_USA.html#bodies

Again; most who are accused of “lying” actually are doing the opposite.

Oh, really? Since reality belies your opinions…“me thinkest thou protesteth tooooooooooo much”.

 

[Protestant101]

I would challenge you to prove otherwise, and also prove that “most of the world” uses the KJV. You apparently are unawares of religious demographics worldwide. Heres proof: adherents.com/adh_rb.html and thats just one source.
And this link provides some “very interesting” information regarding the religious demographics of the US: adherents.com/rel_USA.html#bodies

Actually, I said that **I use the KJV **and when referring to the Bible that “most of the world uses” I meant the non-Catholic Bible, not referring or intending to refer to a particular version. My challenge is still open for you to prove that the Bible I use is not complete enough, or is lacking in all the info we need for salvation. Unless of course you prefer more smoke screens to just answering the question.

 

[Nella]

While maybe you have not said those things you have apparently missed out on many posts in different threads right here on this site recently. Or are you just ignoring the obvious? Those two allegations are “common bleatings” that surface quickly out of the mouths of anti-Catholics.

Not so? in re; propaganda?. I am not going to bother posting the links, but I can suggest that you google the words “contender ministries”… you want lies, misconceptions, propaganda… click on any of the search links…you’ll find 410,000 listings.

The truth is: If you “understood” Catholicism, you would not be carrying on as you, and other protestants do. You would cease with the diatribes, and become Catholics, and have peace in your heart and the fullness of the TRUTH

 

[Nella]

The fact of the matter is…WE DO!! In fact we know exactly what he said… he was a prolific writer and the Catholic Church and the Lutheran’s have saved probably every scrap of everything he ever wrote…and there is literally tons of it accessible on the web.

Need help finding it? Just “google” Martin Luther and add the words on the specific subject…lots of hits with links.

One of my favorites is this one:

davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm

If you ask nicely, and need more help… I can give you some more links full of information regarding Luther…

??? You misunderstand what I said ONCE again. I said what Luther WOULD say. You can’t tell what I WOULD say either. You seem to think that you come from this all knowing institution and it gives you this unbridled ability to do what nobody could or would do. This is a gross abuse of others and it is totally unmatched in arrogance. Very un-Christianlike. This is probably the kind of attitude that Luther had to deal with in his day, but I couldn’t say for certain because I don’t know what Luther WOULD say.

 

[Nella]

While maybe you have not said those things you have apparently missed out on many posts in different threads right here on this site recently. Or are you just ignoring the obvious? Those two allegations are “common bleatings” that surface quickly out of the mouths of anti-Catholics.

Not so? in re; propaganda?. I am not going to bother posting the links, but I can suggest that you google the words “contender ministries”… you want lies, misconceptions, propaganda… click on any of the search links…you’ll find 410,000 listings.

The truth is: If you “understood” Catholicism, you would not be carrying on as you, and other protestants do. You would cease with the diatribes, and become Catholics, and have peace in your heart and the fullness of the TRUTH

First of all, why not post the links? I asked a specific question that I didn’t get an answer for once again. You dodge the question. What lies are we telling about the RCC? Specifically what? I’m sure others would want to know as well. (I can think of several of those who would want to know).

Second of all, I DO understand Catholicism. What a concept!! Being as you accuse everyone who disagrees with you to be merely ignorant of the faith. You seem to think I would just give up questioning that which needs dearly to be questioned and challenged and just become Catholic. Well, I was Catholic, born and raised baptized and all. I attended mass every Sunday, went to confession once a month (at least), fasted during Lent, observed the holy days of obligation, venerated Mary, attended Eucharistic adoration many times and read from my Catechism much. Still think i don’t know what Catholicism is?? For decades I lived it. I left it like many have. I had many hours of discussions with priests as well and they furthered my journey out of the RCC to find the Holy Spirit where I hadn’t experienced him in decades, The RCC.

 

[mgrfin]

You seem to think you know alot about what Luther would say. ****

No, Luther was a big mouth. We know what he wrote. A decent man would not repeat his vile, obscene, blasphemous language.

peace

 

[adrift]

You seem to think you know alot about what Luther would say. ****

You have misunderstood the usage of would here.

Would" is most commonly used to create conditional verb forms. It also serves as the past form of the modal verb “will.” Additionally, “would” can indicate repetition in the past. For more information on the grammar behind the modal verb “would,” visit the following tutorials: Conditional Tutorial, Future in the Past, and Would Always.

Examples:

* If he were an actor, he would be in adventure movies. conditional
* I knew that she would be very successful in her career. past of "will"
* When they first met, they would always have picnics on the beach. repetition

You have applied the conditional form when the usage was past tense.

but quoting what Luther would call the Pope.

Past tense usage meaning that Luther called the Pope the Whore of Babylon.

 

[Protestant101]

No, Luther was a big mouth. We know what he wrote. A decent man would not repeat his vile, obscene, blasphemous language. peace

****“God stays the waves of the sea upon the shore,” said Luther, “and he stays them — with sand!” ****- Martin Luther, during his meeting with Milititz at Altenburg

 

[Sixtus]

I think the dead german is Martin Luther, and the alive German is our current pope

Wow not thought of that. I assumed the dead one was Hitler.

 

[Protestant101]

No, Luther was a big mouth. We know what he wrote. A decent man would not repeat his vile, obscene, blasphemous language.

peace

"As is observed by the Church historian Gieseler, in his admirable account of the early history of the Reformation, the Papacy had ever found its strongest support in the people at large. In spite of all the discontent and disgust provoked by the corruption of the Church and the clergy, an enormous though indefinite authority was still popularly attributed to the Pope and the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

The Pope was believed to be in some sense or other the supreme administrator of spiritual powers which were effectual in the next world as well as in the present; and consequently when any controversy with the Church came to a crisis, men shrank from direct defiance of the Papal authority. They did not feel that they had any firm ground on which they could stand if they incurred its formal condemnation; and thus it always had at its command, in the strongest possible sense, the ultima ratio of rulers.

The convictions to which Luther had been led at once annihilated these pretensions. “One thing and one alone,” he declared, “is necessary for life, justification and Christian liberty, and that is, the most holy word of God, the Gospel of Christ.”

Taken from First Principles of the Reformation or The 95 Theses and the Three Primary Works of Dr. Martin Luther, ed. Henry Wace and C.A. Buchheim (London: John Murray, 1883). Updated March 12th, 2004 by THE ONLINE LIBRARY OF
LIBERTY

It was for saying things like this about The Word of God that Luther was hounded by the Catholic Church like a dog, had his life in constant danger, and was denounced as a heretic.

I would like to find out a list of the official Catholic doctrine/s that gave their Church the direction to persecute Luther like this.

 

[Contarini]

It was for saying things like this about The Word of God that Luther was hounded by the Catholic Church like a dog, had his life in constant danger, and was denounced as a heretic.

It’s for having nonsensical things like this said in his defense that Luther becomes the target of scurrilous and unfair accusations on this board. You are making the job of discussing Luther accurately much harder by your uncritical adulation of him. He was persecuted (and since he was protected by Elector Frederick, he didn’t have it too hard in fact–he just had to be careful where he traveled) not for his high opinion of the Word of God, but for his denial of Catholic teaching. You know this perfectly well. So if you want to ask why Catholics opposed Luther, why not talk about the actual reasons, starting with his attack on the Mass as blasphemous (because it was claimed to be a sacrifice offered to God), which probably stirred up more anger than anything else.

Edwin

 

[Protestant101]

It’s for having nonsensical things like this said in his defense that Luther becomes the target of scurrilous and unfair accusations on this board. You are making the job of discussing Luther accurately much harder by your uncritical adulation of him. He was persecuted (and since he was protected by Elector Frederick, he didn’t have it too hard in fact–he just had to be careful where he traveled) not for his high opinion of the Word of God, but for his denial of Catholic teaching. You know this perfectly well. So if you want to ask why Catholics opposed Luther, why not talk about the actual reasons, starting with his attack on the Mass as blasphemous (because it was claimed to be a sacrifice offered to God), which probably stirred up more anger than anything else.

Edwin

Sorry if I am appearing to be “scurrilous” in such posting; this is not my intention at all. You say that Catholics “opposed” Luther, while others call it “persecute” or “hounded” or “threatened” Luther.

I know full well why Catholics “opposed” Luther but as you mentioned even in your reply,

He was persecuted (and since he was protected by Elector Frederick, he didn’t have it too hard in fact–he just had to be careful where he traveled)

I am trying to find out the following:

1/ Why did Luther have to be so careful when he travelled? What was he scared of? What threats were hanging over him from the Catholics that would make his life like this?

2/ You say that Luther was persecuted. Good. We are making progress. I am not scared of the “real” reason which you state, regarding why Luther was persecuted. You say that one of those reasons was because of his stance on the Catholic Mass? OK. What was going to be done to Luther by Catholics because of this? That’s what scares me, and what should scare any true Christian: that any Church could support their past actions of this nature; for it only means that if they still currently support this kind of action from their past, they may do so again should the political climate again permit such a thing in a given part of the world. I am trying to find out just what specific Catholic doctrines would have led Catholics in the past to see this as “God’s will?” Have those doctrines changed since the persecution of Luther?

3/ I remain concerned that no one has shown me official Catholic teachings that would outright deny their “right” to persecute, harrass, or other wise slander individuals who may disagree with Catholic doctrine, should the political climate again allow such things in a given location/s.

I would like to respectfully say too, that you sound almost vicious towards anyone who dares to question the Mass. I have gotten this kind of response personally from a number of Catholics. For those who think it’s OK to respond like that or worse, to anyone who “blasphemes” God by such questions, you should think seriously what this kind of attitude really says to people, and about your faith.

I have attended several Masses, and I have studied about the Mass with Catholics, both in person, and on this forum. I still have serious questions about it all; but I would be scared to mention them on this forum for fear of what would be said about me. I am thankful for the few Catholics who have been true Christians towards me, even when I asked them some hard questions about this. They never said one mean word about me or to me, just because I was seriously questioning one of their central tenets, the Mass. They know that the truth needs no defense of this kind.

 

[mgrfin]

“God stays the waves of the sea upon the shore,” said Luther, “and he stays them — with sand!”

Too bad that is not true. It’s the phases of the moon.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

It was for saying things like this about The Word of God that Luther was hounded by the Catholic Church like a dog, had his life in constant danger, and was denounced as a heretic.

I would like to find out a list of the official Catholic doctrine/s that gave their Church the direction to persecute Luther like this.

Luther, by definition, was a heretic, and he was excommunicated for it. And all the Church documents opposing Luther are published and well known. You can look them up, or some of your Lutheran historians can provide them to you.

peace

 

[Contarini]

Sorry if I am appearing to be “scurrilous” in such posting; this is not my intention at all.

Sorry–your post was not scurrilous. My rather elliptically expressed point was that some Catholics make scurrilous attacks on Luther, and that the main reason they feel impelled to do this is that Protestants have a mythical image of Luther as this hero who was persecuted simply for proclaiming the Word of God. Therefore, Catholics try to tear down Luther’s image and the whole thing generates more heat than light. Using more neutral language on both sides and looking at issues more closely would result in a lot more clarity and mutual understanding (not necessarily agreement), I think.

I am trying to find out the following:

1/ Why did Luther have to be so careful when he travelled? What was he scared of? What threats were hanging over him from the Catholics that would make his life like this?

He had been excommunicated and condemned as a heretic, and was also outlawed by the emperor. There’s no mystery about this.

**

2/

**

You say that Luther was persecuted. Good. We are making progress.

Compared to what? When did I ever say Luther was not persecuted? Given what strong political support he had, I don’t waste a lot of time feeling sorry for him, when there were a lot of people in the sixteenth century who really did suffer for their faith. But of course Catholic governments would happily have killed him if they could have.

I am not scared of the “real” reason which you state, regarding why Luther was persecuted. You say that one of those reasons was because of his stance on the Catholic Mass? OK. What was going to be done to Luther by Catholics because of this? That’s what scares me, and what should scare any true Christian: that any Church could support their past actions of this nature; for it only means that if they still currently support this kind of action from their past, they may do so again should the political climate again permit such a thing in a given part of the world.

This doesn’t make any sense. The Catholic Church has made its position on religious liberty quite clear at Vatican II, in the new Catechism, and since. The fact that they once supported the execution of heretics does not mean that they would do so again, if that’s what’s worrying you. I’m a lot more worried about what fundamentalist Protestants would do if they ran the country than about Catholicism (though of course the real threat in that regard is Islam, not Christianity).

Protestants I am trying to find out just what specific Catholic doctrines would have led Catholics in the past to see this as “God’s will?” Have those doctrines changed since the persecution of Luther?

Some of the doctrines Luther criticized have been further clarified (in ways that may look like change to us, but which Catholics say are not). The doctrine of the Mass as sacrifice has been brought into a clearer relationship with the one sacrifice of Christ, in my opinion, and NT and patristic scholarship has brought out the rich understanding of sacrifice implicit in the doctrine of the Mass (i.e., it’s not just a propitiatory sacrifice but a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving by which we offer the fruit of the earth to God and God transforms it into Christ’s body and blood, thus accepting our sacrifice and linking it with the one saving sacrifice of Christ on the Cross). I don’t know if this would impress Luther or not.

However, this is irrelevant to the question of persecution. The Reformed government of Geneva executed Servetus for denying the Trinity. That doesn’t mean that Calvinists, or Protestants generally, can only abandon persecution if they abandon the doctrine of the Trinity. Zurich drowned Anabaptists–Reformed churches today still oppose rebaptism (except of course for Reformed Baptists, whose status as Reformed is sometimes questioned by other Reformed), but they don’t drown Mennonites or Baptists or Restorationists. Your premise is flawed, and you are applying it highly selectively by worrying about Catholics and not Calvinists. (And in fact there is a tiny group of conservative Calvinists who have begun once again to defend religious persecution–I am referring to the “reconstructionists” or “theonomists.”)