| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 06/28/2017 3:25:17 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Flame war material. |
Posted on 06/28/2017 9:04:53 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Seeing the despotism exercised by the head of the Reformation in imposing his opinions, one might imagine that nothing should be more soundly and painstakingly elaborated than his new doctrine. Such conclusion is completely mistaken.
Martin Luther, reformer
His doctrine, dictated by personal whims and prejudices The false divine messenger, who ‘modestly’ preferred himself to all the Doctors of the Church and pretended to be inspired by the Holy Ghost since he received ‘his dogmas from heaven,’ in reality is insecure, regretful about his early teachings, contradictory and arbitrary. Whether he established dogmas or destroyed them, he was motivated by trivialities and personal prejudices. He changed his opinions like an actor changing his costumes. Here are some examples:
Conditional baptism - On May 12, 1531 Luther wrote to Wenzel Link about conditional baptism, affirming that “after careful consideration we have defined that it must simply be eliminated from the Church.” The next day, he changed his mind. Again ‘inspired,’ he wrote to Ossiandro: “I cannot condemn conditional baptism being given to children whose first baptism is doubtful” (1)
Power of the Catholic Church - In 1519 he wrote: “I fully confess the supreme power of the Roman Church; after Jesus Christ Our Lord, she should be preferred to everything on earth and heaven.” (2) This Church “is the one chosen by God; there can be no reason for anyone to break away from her and, entering into schism, separate himself from her unity.” (3) In 1520, in his Lutheran Epistle, he strongly praised Pope Leo X, saying that his courageous life placed him above any attack. (4)
However, in that same year Leo X would become the Antichrist and the Roman Church “a licentious den of thieves, the most depraved brothel, the kingdom of sin, death and hell.” (5)
Saints, purgatory, prayer for the dead - In 1519, two years after he publicly started to preach his Reformation, while defending himself from adversaries, he taught the cult of the saints, the existence of purgatory, praying for the deceased, the practice of fasting etc. (6) Some years later, he rejected all these doctrines as idolatry, superstition and fanaticism.
Indulgences - In 1541 he swore in Christ’s name that when he began to preach against Dominican Johann Tetzel, accusing him of selling indulgences, he did not even know what the word indulgence meant! (7) Notwithstanding, his criticism against those same indulgences - about which he knew nothing - had served as a pretext for him to attack Rome, disseminate his errors and preach the revolt! (8)
Luther’s own mission - Regarding the origin and ‘legitimacy’ of his mission, in a little more than 15 years Luther changed his views at least 14 times (9). Opportunism dictated his choices. To combat Catholics he would say one thing; to defend himself before his Protestant colleagues he would affirm another; he had yet other arguments to calm the turbulence in the new reformed communities. The actor had a well-stocked wardrobe, with costumes for a multitude of roles
It would not be difficult to continue this list of contradictions. There is almost no important dogma about which Luther did not completely change his views from time to time.
Changes motivated by irrational hatred
To understand Luther’s psychology, one must examine the motivation for his constant vacillations. Writing about Communion under one of two species in his liturgical essay called Formula Missae, he stated: “If a council would mandate or allow two species, to show our scorn we would receive only one or neither one
Manuscript, purgatory verses
A 15th-century English manuscript with Bible verses on Purgatory, which Luther eliminated on a whim nor the other, and we would anathematize those who, following that mandate, would receive both” (10).
On another occasion, he declared that he had decided to do away with the elevation of the host at mass just to show his contempt for the Papacy and that he had conserved the custom up until then just to scorn Andreas Karlstadt [another more radical Protestant who had already abandoned this practice] (11).
With similar vileness he wrote in 1523: “If it should happen that one, two, or a thousand and more councils would decide that ecclesiastics should marry, I, trusting in divine grace, would rather forgive the one who has two or three harlots throughout his life than the one who, following that conciliar decision, would take one legitimate wife forever” (12).
The same psychological bias against the hated papists appeared when he wrote: “Since they [the papists] think they are triumphing over one of my heresies, then let me propose another” (13).
What a mixture of vulgarity, licentiousness and duplicity in the supposed “evangelic reformer”!
One other fact should not be forgotten. It is the famous sacramental dispute that divided the innovators Martin Luther and Andreas Karlstadt into two irremediably separated camps, which started with this tavern scene. After a harangue by Luther, the two reformers entered Black Bear Inn in Jura, where Karlstadt declared he could no longer tolerate Luther’s opinion on the real presence. Luther scornfully challenged him to refute his position in writing and promised him a florin if he would do it. He took a coin from his pocket and Karlstadt accepted it.
The wine flowed; the contenders shook hands and drank to each other’s health. This was their declaration of war on August 22, 1523. Karlstadt, bidding Luther farewell, said: “I hope you will be smashed by a roller!” Returning the amiability, Luther replied: “May a thousand lighting bolts strike you before you leave town!”
From this episode Bossuet concluded: “This is the new gospel, these are the acts of the new apostles…” (14)
Changes inspired by the Devil
His reason for suppressing the mass appears to be more ‘supernatural.’ It was the victory of the Devil in a terrible dispute into which Luther had entered with him. Luther himself narrated the episode in detail and then concluded:
“This [surrender] should surprise no one since the logic of the Devil was delivered in such a blood-curdling voice that it nearly froze the blood in my veins. I understood then why some persons die in the night: It is because the Devil can kill and suffocate men, and even if he does not take those extremes, he can entangle them in his disputes with so many obstacles they can cause death: I have experienced this many times” (15).
Was Luther lying when he described this episode or was he telling the truth? If the latter is the case, what reliance can be put on a man whose teacher was the Father of Lies? Let the admirers of the reformer try to find a resolution for this dilemma…
The episode above is indicative of the important role the Devil played in the interior life of the heresiarch. Indeed, Satan never leaves him alone a moment. He follows him day and night, into both the church and the tavern. More than once Luther stated that his life was “a series of duels” with Satan. He slept with the Devil more often than with his Katerina.
He saw the Devil everywhere: in the cloud that passed, in the lightning that struck, in the thunder that roared, in the forests, waters, deserts, infesting the air and the fields. He saw devils hidden in serpents and lizards, monkeys and parrots, in the fly that rested on his book, even in the walnuts sent by an admirer. The Evil Spirit was the one who routinely resolved every difficult problem for him. To the Devil’s malefic action Luther attributed the moral disorders and social calamities unchained by his subversive doctrines (16).
This diabolic obsession that tortured the soul of the unfortunate renegade can be seen in all of Luther’s writings. Devils dominate in his style; one would say that some of his pages were written in Hell. In the essay against Duke Henry of Brunswick, the Devil is honored by being named 146 times; in the book on the councils he mentioned the Devil 15 times in four lines (17). He accused the adversaries of the Reformation of having “a satanist, super-satanist and hyper-satanist heart.” To Luther must be attributed the initiative of making a new genre of writing fashionable, one dominated by the Devil, whose tune all the other reformers would follow and sing.
Are these uncertainties, doctrinal contradictions, superficiality in inventing and destroying dogmas, and satanic arrogance and language befitting a messenger who proposes to restore Christianity?
~ Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Considering the disaster that is the current pope, harping on Luther seems a waste of effort
I would ask the Religion Moderator if this is acceptable?
Dr. Luther, living rent-free in Catholic heads for 500 years.
And the best you can do to argue against him is spend pages upon pages ultimately doing nothing but calling him a poopy head.
That’s hilarious, that you can’t even bring up sensible arguments without resorting to ad hominem attacks.
qq moar m8s.
It seems that the Catholics need to be reminded from time to time that this was founded as a protestant country. Perhaps if they don’t like it, they should move to the Vatican and live near their king in a pointed hat.
Considering the disaster that is the current pope, harping on Luther seems a waste of effort
***
From what I can see, they loathe Pope Frankie, but the problem is that they spent their entire lives hating on Dr. Luther. And they can’t seem to come to grips with the fact that they’re doing exactly what Dr. Luther did.
So these attacks on Dr. Luther are little more than virtue signalling to try to assuage the cognitive dissonance.
And they’re irrational hatred of Luther is just what the NWO wants: Catholics and Protestants fighting while the Muslims sharpen their swords.
Except that this Pope is determined to merge the Catholic Church with the Lutherans—and the Lutherans he has chosen are the pro-abortion, lesbian-bishop Lutherans in Sweden.
I predict that sometime before October 31, Bergoglio will CONCELEBRATE the Novus Novus Ordo “mass,” with silence between the Gloria and the Our Father, with lesbian Lutheran bishops. It will be, of course, no mass at all, with no actual consecration. The “communion” that takes place will be “simulation of a sacrament.”
I further predict that hardly a peep will be heard from the Catholic hierarchy.
Show me where the word “Protestant” appears in the Declaration or the Constitution.
The gospel is not man-centered nor is it dependent on the whims of man or his winds of doctrine which toss God's people to and fro by man's sleight whereby they lie in wait to deceive (Eph 4:14).
Instead, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16).
Excellent article, authored by a Jesuit (back when Jesuits were Catholic).
(I could be wrong, but...)
Bingo. Don’t care much what Luther thought/did. Or the “Popes” for that matter. Only what is in scripture. I know what I believe, and why I believe it. I’ve read it.
You’re wanting to start a flame war?
What? Did you wake up this morning and say to yourself, “Gee, I’m bored. Maybe I should go needlessly stir up some sh*t.”
In any case, get your asbestos shorts on because here it comes...
I concur. I am heartily sick of Luther bashing on FR and I lose patience over feeble and vapid rationalizations to do so with impunity. Or are you convinced the Reformation occurred in a vacuum and that committed Lutherans (Missouri Synod) are not worthy of consideration or respect on this forum? Do the planet a favor and give it a rest.Enough!
Isn’t it just facts about Luther?
“It seems that the Catholics need to be reminded from time to time that this was founded as a protestant country. Perhaps if they don’t like it, they should move to the Vatican and live near their king in a pointed hat.”
It seems that the Protestant anti-Catholics need to be reminded from time to time that this was founded as a Protestant country by Protestants running away from Protestant oppression in Europe. Since all Protestants claim some authority - yet possess none except by acclaim - they can only create societies that go from oppression to freedom to license and finally atheism and complete immorality. This means anyone can come here - including non-Protestants - and the very thought of obeying laws or insisting there are laws becomes onerous to others and their precious snowflake feelings. Perhaps if they - the Protestants - don’t like it, they should move to the Vatican and live near the pope they hate.
Not true. Catholics were in the United States before any protestants.
There is no sensible arguments about a small-time priest, barely out of the seminary, that thought he was an authority on the Catholic Church. Luther was a little-known Catholic priest, with no authority whatsoever to question anything. It was his whacky followers that tore Christianity apart.
“I concur. I am heartily sick of Luther bashing on FR and I lose patience over feeble and vapid rationalizations to do so with impunity.”
It’s 2017 - 500th anniversary of the Protestant Revolution. Get used to it.
“Or are you convinced the Reformation occurred in a vacuum and that committed Lutherans (Missouri Synod) are not worthy of consideration or respect on this forum?”
WELS and CLC would disagree with you about which synod represents “committed Lutherans”. They make LCMS look like Liberals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.