Why I could never follow Luther.

[rinnie]

I was also told, but in all honesty can not say this is true or not. But in a book called the Facts about Luther by Msgr. Patrick O’hare it claims that Luther also sanctioned polygamy in certain circumstances.

 

[swords99]

My friend told me that Luther regretted his actions when he was dying.

Can you give the documentation please?

 

[swords99]

I was also told, but in all honesty can not say this is true or not. But in a book called the Facts about Luther by Msgr. Patrick O’hare it claims that Luther also sanctioned polygamy in certain circumstances.

What bothers me is the tearing down of one man. Of finding fault and thus discrediting him. Individuals in the CC weren’t and aren’t perfect either. But its easier to to attack one person than a whole organization. There is plenty of documentation of corrupt popes and others who oppressed the poor and took their money under the guise that God sanctioned this in order to get dead loves ones a ticket to heaven. By keeping the bible in latin and out of the hands of the layperson, they had no way of knowing if what the church taught them was true. Luther said he did not have or own a bible until he was an adult. It was when he began to read it for himself that he saw some errors of the CC. In the Book Of Acts it talks about the noble Bereans who didn’t just believe wahtever Paul or Silas taught them, but they searched the Scriptures daily to see if these things were true. We too need to be “berean” Christians.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

What bothers me is the tearing down of one man.

How is it “tearing down” a person for merely stating what that person believed and taught?

 

[swords99]

How is it “tearing down” a person for merely stating what that person believed and taught?

Its not about following Luther. Or pitting him against an entire organization. He has been used as a scapegoat and this is just an excuse. He did not want followers. He never wanted the term Lutheran or Lutheran church. This is what the people wanted. They needed and were crying out for reforms.

My objection to attacking one man is that what’s happening is everyone is casting the first stone. But at the same time refuses to be honest and acknowledge that the CC is not perfect because men are not perfect. We have all sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. Luther had the courage to speak out against abuses and a church that got so wealthy and was collecting money from the poor who did not understand that one cannot buy God or pay God to alter one’s eternal destiny. The CC was accumulating massive wealth and gold, silver, ikons, statues, etc. etc and this is what troubled Luther because Jesus and His followers lived modestly. The CC forgot its first love.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Its not about following Luther. Or pitting him against an entire organization. He has been used as a scapegoat and this is just an excuse. He did not want followers. He never wanted the term Lutheran or Lutheran church. This is what the people wanted. They needed and were crying out for reforms.

Nobody’s using Luther as a scapegoat by simply pointing out his immorality and hypocrisy.

He and his followers could hardly be considered “reformers” though, if for no other reason than they lived as morally or immorally as it suited them! Further, Luther (and his followers) habitually lied, habitually misrepresented the Church and her teachings in order to further their own ends. I suggest you read:

1. Denifle.
2. Grisar (6 volumes).
3. Pastor (40 volumes).

You’ll learn (and I’m truly sorry to even say it) what wretched and dishonorable men the so-called “reformers” actually were and how they shamefully distorted what the Church actually believed and taught.

My objection to attacking one man is that what’s happening is everyone is casting the first stone. But at the same time refuses to be honest and acknowledge that the CC is not perfect because men are not perfect.

Read the above works. Nowhere in them does one find a denial of the need for reform, or that there were bad members of the Church. Fortunately for the Church though, the Church was actually purged of many of these bad members when they left to become Protestants!

Listen to what William Thomas Walsh says in his work Phillip II (p. 252):

In England it was the Reformed Observantine Franciscans who withstood Henry VIII even to death, while the relaxed Conventuals and other badly disciplined monks and priests formed the nucleus of the Church of England. The first Protestants, as a rule, were bad Catholics.

For a whole century or more before Philip II, most of the Popes and large numbers of prelates had been striving to reform the Church. A great deal had been accomplished. A great deal more remained to be done.

Some Popes of the highest intentions were compelled to devote most of their energies to the defense of Christendom against the conquering Turks. Others were foiled by the selfishness and criminal quarrelsomeness of European rulers. When Protestantism appeared, its leaders called loudly for reform. Most of them, however, could be depended upon to reject, resist and misrepresent any attempt to hold a General Council of all Christendom, without which no thorough reform would be possible." Source here.

We have all sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. Luther had the courage to speak out against abuses and a church that got so wealthy and was collecting money from the poor who did not understand that one cannot buy God or pay God to alter one’s eternal destiny. The CC was accumulating massive wealth and gold, silver, ikons, statues, etc. etc and this is what troubled Luther because Jesus and His followers lived modestly. The CC forgot its first love.

Luther had “courage” alright - the “courage” of a scoundrel! You are simply following the shameful Lutheran / Protestant pattern of grossly caricaturing the the medieval Church!

But please believe me when I say I’m not attacking you personally my friend, nor any of my other Protestant friends here. There were faults on both sides. But only one side (the Protestant) is generally ever spoken of. Yet we have been commanded to expose error and falsehood whatever the source, and this is all I’m trying to do. We’ve heard far to much about “bad popes” etc, but virtually nothing about the bad Reformers. Time for a change don’t you think?

 

[rinnie]

Its not about following Luther. Or pitting him against an entire organization. He has been used as a scapegoat and this is just an excuse. He did not want followers. He never wanted the term Lutheran or Lutheran church. This is what the people wanted. They needed and were crying out for reforms.

My objection to attacking one man is that what’s happening is everyone is casting the first stone. But at the same time refuses to be honest and acknowledge that the CC is not perfect because men are not perfect. We have all sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. Luther had the courage to speak out against abuses and a church that got so wealthy and was collecting money from the poor who did not understand that one cannot buy God or pay God to alter one’s eternal destiny. The CC was accumulating massive wealth and gold, silver, ikons, statues, etc. etc and this is what troubled Luther because Jesus and His followers lived modestly. The CC forgot its first love.

I am sorry the CC is Perfect. The CC is the Living Christ and Christ is perfect. The RCC is NOT led by Men it is led by the advocate the Holy Spirit just as Jesus promised.

I will send you the Advococate the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truths. Thats what Jesus said,

 

[Mikeoffaith]

He and his followers could hardly be considered “reformers” though, if for no other reason than they lived as morally or immorally as it suited them! Further, Luther (and his followers) habitually lied, habitually misrepresented the Church and her teachings in order to further their own ends. I suggest you read:

All right Raumzeitmc2, now that you have made the accusation that Luther habitually lied and habitually misrepresented the Church and her teachings to further his own ends, then prove it! Which teaching would you like to start with the 95 Theses or The Augsburg Confession? You choose. Pick an Article in either and let me know how it is a lie against the Roman Catholic Church of 1517 or how it misrepresented the teaching or actual practice of the Roman Catholic Church of 1517.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

I am sorry the CC is Perfect. The CC is the Living Christ and Christ is perfect. The RCC is NOT led by Men it is led by the advocate the Holy Spirit just as Jesus promised.

I will send you the Advococate the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truths. Thats what Jesus said,

What of the Orthodox? Are they not led by the Holy Spirit?

 

[Christ_is_first]

I’m new to this so let’s see if this works.
I’ve been told by a very knowledgeable person that if I knew the whole story of Martin Luther, the one that has not been edited a few hundren times that I would be amazed at what I find out. I asked him what he meant. He said that Luther not only started as a Catholic priest, made the split because of the corruption in the Catholic Church, BUT because the Protestants went too far with his teachings he actually returned to the Catholic Church. So this has been a challenge to me to find out the truth. I joined the Catholic Answers forum hoping to expidite the process of learning as reading many biographies hasn’t given me the answer yet. Does anybody else know where I can look for this? If not I do intend to ask the person who said it, but it is kinda of fun to search and learn new things. And I have learned much so far. Mostly, it is great to be Catholic!
Christ is first

 

[raumzeitmc2]

All right Raumzeitmc2, now that you have made the accusation that Luther habitually lied and habitually misrepresented the Church and her teachings to further his own ends, then prove it! Which teaching would you like to start with the 95 Theses or The Augsburg Confession? You choose. Pick an Article in either and let me know how it is a lie against the Roman Catholic Church of 1517 or how it misrepresented the teaching or actual practice of the Roman Catholic Church of 1517.

My friend, there is abundant evidence to suggest that Luther was, quite frankly, a pathological liar. One need only read his countless utterances and slanders against Catholics to see this is so. If you doubt what I say, I would suggest you begin doing a bit of research. You might start by reading pp. 80-130 of Fr. Grisar’s Luther, volume 4, where Grisar talks about “Luther and Lying” .

Personally, I don’t see how anyone can condone or defend such outrageous behavior from a so-called “reformer.” But what makes all this really so bad is that Luther indeed had many excellent traits (which I never have nor ever will deny!). Sadly however, these were more often than not overridden and marred by his vehemence and indomitable pride. A great pity.

God willing though, we shall all be friends in heaven.

Please give all this some serious reflection.

Peace.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

My friend, there is abundant evidence to suggest that Luther was, quite frankly, a pathological liar. One need only read his countless utterances and slanders against Catholics to see this is so. If you doubt what I say, I would suggest you begin doing a bit of research. You might start by reading pp. 80-130 of Fr. Grisar’s Luther, volume 4, where Grisar talks about “Luther and Lying” .

Personally, I don’t see how anyone can condone or defend such outrageous behavior from a so-called “reformer.” But what makes all this really so bad is that Luther indeed had many excellent traits (which I never have nor ever will deny!). Sadly however, these were more often than not overridden and marred by his vehemence and indomitable pride. A great pity.

God willing though, we shall all be friends in heaven.

Please give all this some serious reflection.

Peace.

And you’re done. You don’t care to look at the facts of Luther’s arguments none at all and you care not to debate them.

So if you think that you win your argument that everything Luther said was heresy and lies because he was a bad, bad man, then it’s going to be equally valid for me to say that the Papacy is truly the anti-christ and that the Holy Spirit has abandoned guiding the office completely because in 1517 the Bishopric of Rome had been completely hijacked by the Medici family, installing their issue in high offices within the church. That Leo X had lived in complete debauchery having homosexual love affairs while bankrupting the church on his own extravagant lifestyle which continues today. The current Bishop of Rome lives in a palace and dresses quite well. That ermine lined coat he wore last winter was something else and I’m certain he never misses a meal and you would certainly never see him outside the Vatican walls ministering to the sick and poor a la Mother Theresa and Christ.

So if you think it is beneficial on working towards unity to continue to name call and argue things that are really of no substance than bring it on.

By the way, so as not to incur the wrath of my Latin Rite brothers and sisters, I do not believe that the papacy is the anti-christ, and yes Leo X was a big mess but there were some good ones too, love Paul VI. And I do believe that the papacy is different from the one of 1517.

 

[campeador]

 

[Oldtimer_7]

Campeador, we are in total agreement here.

Saint Augustine as a youth was praying for continence and an attractive woman walked by. He ended his prayer by adding the caveat, “but not just yet.”

The personal failings of any of the players in the drama of the Reformation may make for interesting reading, but they add nothing to the understanding of the events themselves. Let us admit to every sin and then get back to what is important in this discussion.

ESV: I John Chapter 1

[8] If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. [9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. [10] If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

For his part, Luther nearly wore out the patience of his confessor when he was a friar. He was only too aware of his sins.

Christ is First, I want to welcome you to this fellowship. We are all sinners here, trying to release the saints that are in us. Excuse our lower moments and look for the gold that emerges sometimes as nuggets, but often as dust that must be sifted.

The issue of Luther leaving the church has been explored in this thread. As I understand it, excommunication is not initiated by the person, but by a bishop, at minimum. As such, it cannot be terminated by the person, but by the bishop or some other member of the hierarchy. Luther had a lot of regrets about the course of the Reformation. If he had led it, it would not have gone the way it did, but events were beyond his or the Church’s control.

Now, after 12 pages of discussion. let us turn to the topic that began this thread. It is certainly not necessary for salvation to be Lutheran. Some of you, Dogknox in particular, seem to promote the idea that there is not salvation outside the Church. The question then becomes, is it sufficient to be Lutheran, in regard to salvation?

There are many reasons to cleave to one denomination. As some of you are cradle Catholics, I am a cradle Lutheran. There is the continuity of culture. My son-in-law, who is currently excommunicated because he married outside the church without prior permission, has said he likes the culture of the Catholic Church. Some few come to a particular denomination because of theological considerations (about 10% according to some polls I have read). For others it is as simple as the church being the closest to home, or offering children’s programs.

So, when you say “I could never be Lutheran,” how do you mean it? Does it mean that you would lose your salvation? Does it mean you are at home in the Catholic Church (or other denomination, since this is not necessarily a Lutheran-Catholic conversation)? What are the dimensions of this statement?

 

[swords99]

Nobody’s using Luther as a scapegoat by simply pointing out his immorality and hypocrisy.

He and his followers could hardly be considered “reformers” though, if for no other reason than they lived as morally or immorally as it suited them! Further, Luther (and his followers) habitually lied, habitually misrepresented the Church and her teachings in order to further their own ends. I suggest you read:

1. Denifle.
2. Grisar (6 volumes).
3. Pastor (40 volumes).

You’ll learn (and I’m truly sorry to even say it) what wretched and dishonorable men the so-called “reformers” actually were and how they shamefully distorted what the Church actually believed and taught.

Read the above works. Nowhere in them does one find a denial of the need for reform, or that there were bad members of the Church. Fortunately for the Church though, the Church was actually purged of many of these bad members when they left to become Protestants!

Listen to what William Thomas Walsh says in his work Phillip II (p. 252):

Luther had “courage” alright - the “courage” of a scoundrel! You are simply following the shameful Lutheran / Protestant pattern of grossly caricaturing the the medieval Church!

But please believe me when I say I’m not attacking you personally my friend, nor any of my other Protestant friends here. There were faults on both sides. But only one side (the Protestant) is generally ever spoken of. Yet we have been commanded to expose error and falsehood whatever the source, and this is all I’m trying to do. We’ve heard far to much about “bad popes” etc, but virtually nothing about the bad Reformers. Time for a change don’t you think?

My point is many are quick to note Luther’s faults but refuse to admit there were corrupt popes and priests and always will be…

The Protestant faiths do not “follow” Luther. He is not the founder of any religion. Christ alone has that position.

As for the RCC purging and cleansing the church by ousting dissenters, this is how the this church silenced those who disagreed, by excommunication or worse -death. I see nowhere in the history of the RCC any reforms having been done. It continued to forge ahead as a powerful organization because it was “married” to the State of Rome. Thus it wielded political power with the king’s endorsement.

Faults on both sides…sure, but the RCC punished the reformers and those who chose to follow these reformers. Exile and threats of death were everywhere. But the RCC remained nearly unscathed and unrepentant.

Thank God we now have separation of church and state.

 

[gcnuss]

My point is many are quick to note Luther’s faults but refuse to admit there were corrupt popes and priests and always will be.

It is good to remember that human frailty affects all people. There are none without sin. At the same time, it is easy to point out the sins of others while ignoring our own.

The Protestant faiths do not “follow” Luther. He is not the founder of any religion. Christ alone has that position.

Agreed, at least as far as the Christian religion is concerned.

As for the RCC purging and cleansing the church by ousting dissenters, this is how the this church silenced those who disagreed, by excommunication or worse -death.

I am unaware of the church imposing death on anyone. However, it was known to turn those found to be heretics over to the civil authorities which had laws making heresy a capital crime.

I see nowhere in the history of the RCC any reforms having been done.

I think any fair-minded non-Catholic would recognize that some reform came out of the Council of Trent.

Faults on both sides…sure, but the RCC punished the reformers and those who chose to follow these reformers. Exile and threats of death were everywhere. But the RCC remained nearly unscathed and unrepentant.

One might consider the fate of many Catholics in 16th and 17th century England when the Protestants were in power. In fairness, the Protestants suffered during the reign of Mary Tudor.

It seems to me that we gain little by pointing out the sins of our forefathers. We would do well to focus on following Christ in the 21st century.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

My point is many are quick to note Luther’s faults but refuse to admit there were corrupt popes and priests and always will be…

Who’s refusing to admit bad popes and clergy?? And what about you? Will you admit to there being equally bad clergy in your church?

The Protestant faiths do not “follow” Luther. He is not the founder of any religion. Christ alone has that position.

Then why do they refer to themselves as “Lutherans” and refer to their church as the Lutheran church? (great Biblical name there!).

As for the RCC purging and cleansing the church by ousting dissenters, this is how the this church silenced those who disagreed, by excommunication or worse -death.

Here we go again! Yet another gross historical misrepresentation of the Church! My friend, you need to read some solid history.

I see nowhere in the history of the RCC any reforms having been done. It continued to forge ahead as a powerful organization because it was “married” to the State of Rome. Thus it wielded political power with the king’s endorsement.

It just gets worse…

Faults on both sides…sure, but the RCC punished the reformers and those who chose to follow these reformers.

“Follow these reformers”?? Curious statement given your previous statement: “The Protestant faiths do not ‘follow’ Luther.” Seems you just let that cat out of the bag!

Exile and threats of death were everywhere. But the RCC remained nearly unscathed and unrepentant.

More slanders and misrepresentations! Luther to a tee!

Really, my friend, you desperately need to read some solid history! As for “exile and threats of death,” I suggest you read this for a little balance. Maybe then we can have some semblance of a calm and rational conversation about all this.

Peace.

 

[swords99]

It is good to remember that human frailty affects all people. There are none without sin. At the same time, it is easy to point out the sins of others while ignoring our own.

Agreed, at least as far as the Christian religion is concerned.

I am unaware of the church imposing death on anyone. However, it was known to turn those found to be heretics over to the civil authorities which had laws making heresy a capital crime.

I think any fair-minded non-Catholic would recognize that some reform came out of the Council of Trent.

One might consider the fate of many Catholics in 16th and 17th century England when the Protestants were in power. In fairness, the Protestants suffered during the reign of Mary Tudor.

It seems to me that we gain little by pointing out the sins of our forefathers. We would do well to focus on following Christ in the 21st century.

The council of Trent was and still is about a lot of anathema against others. It was an attempt to destroy the progress of the Protestant Reformation. This council denied every Reformation doctrine, including Scripture alone and grace alone. Trent hurled 125 anathemas (eternal damnation) against Bible-believing Christians.

The CC was responsible for the Death of Jan Hus. The Diet of Worms made it a crime for anyone in Germany to give Luther food or shelter. It permitted anyone to kill Luther without legal consequence. There are many more stories like these.

 

[swords99]

Who’s refusing to admit bad popes and clergy?? And what about you? Will you admit to there being equally bad clergy in your church?

Then why do they refer to themselves as “Lutherans” and refer to their church as the Lutheran church? (great Biblical name there!).

Here we go again! Yet another gross historical misrepresentation of the Church! My friend, you need to read some solid history.

It just gets worse…

“Follow these reformers”?? Curious statement given your previous statement: “The Protestant faiths do not ‘follow’ Luther.” Seems you just let that cat out of the bag!

More slanders and misrepresentations! Luther to a tee!

Really, my friend, you desperately need to read some solid history! As for “exile and threats of death,” I suggest you read this for a little balance. Maybe then we can have some semblance of a calm and rational conversation about all this.

Peace.

Are all Protestants Lutheran? Course not. Can you please qualify all your statements? That would be most helpful, instead of saying “gross misrepresentation”, etc. Anyone can make blanket statements, but they are meaningless without documentation…

 

[gcnuss]

The council of Trent was and still is about a lot of anathema against others. It was an attempt to destroy the progress of the Protestant Reformation. This council denied every Reformation doctrine, including Scripture alone and grace alone. Trent hurled 125 anathemas (eternal damnation) against Bible-believing Christians.

The CC was responsible for the Death of Jan Hus. The Diet of Worms made it a crime for anyone in Germany to give Luther food or shelter. It permitted anyone to kill Luther without legal consequence. There are many more stories like these.

The Diet of Worms was a political, not ecclesiastical, body. Of course, the connection between religion and politics was much closer then. Nonetheless, the outlawing of Luther was a political action, decreed by the emperor. The Church had no authority to do what was done, even if it agreed with it and urged it.