Posted on 03/15/2008 10:17:55 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper
More than once during these talks I referred to Luther and what always occurred to me as his destructive influence. I pointed out that even in such an admirable book as Rohan Butler's “The Roots of National Socialism” the spiritual origins of Nazism and Luther's influence had not been given the necessary importance. Then I was asked if I would be prepared to elaborate to them—about a dozen of the very senior boys, that is—my own views on Luther and Lutheranism. I agreed—with the proviso that they would be my own views and nothing else. Admittedly, I had read more on Luther and about Luther than on most other subjects. But I wanted to make it quite clear that I would not speak to them with the voice of a great authority, but would merely give them my own interpretation. I told them, moreover, that I should try to prove how dangerous it is to accept legends; and that the picture I had of Luther and his influence was thoroughly contradictory of the customary Luther of the legend.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicapologetics.info ...
Hmmmm.
Seems like the best way to refute a Catholic is to invite another Catholic to the discussion.
I would be interested in your take on either of the books I offered.
**Scripture says that “nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]”**
There is one small technicality for a certain few. Christ became sin for us. We are cloaked in His righteousness, He bore our sin.
This is false. The ritual of anathema never invoked any demons. It did refer to delivering the condemned to Satan for the mortification of his body in the hope of his repentance.
That's quoting 1 Corinthians 5:5. Perhaps you'd like to take up your objection with St. Paul.
“Kinder, Kurche, Kuchen are culturally Germanic Protestant.
Very Hitler.”
I have some insight into this cultural phenomenom because the maternal side of my family is French Catholic, but from Alsace and were under German rule from time to time.
The French side, while some of my maternal relatives spoke both French and German did not have the concept of kinder, kurche, kuchen. They were quite French Catholic in their outlook on life. Much happier people and more involved with the whole community.
Better cooks, too.
The Germanic side was terribly dark and depressed and obsessive.
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”
Bonhoeffer died at the hands of the Nazi after an assassination attempt of Hitler.
Nothing unclean shall enter heaven. Period. No exceptions.
You think purgatory is "Christ rebuking". I think your theology, which effectively claims that the eternal God of the universe can be deceived, and permits himself to be deceived, is utterly blasphemous.
And as we all know, actions (or the lack of them) speak louder than words.
For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." -- Mark 7:20-23"And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
Let me see. The article is about Martin Luther creating an environment that fostered Nazism and in some way the Catholics have something to refute...hmmm...how would that be possible without a straw man being set up to avoid refuting the author? Seems to me SOMEONE...ANYONE who disagrees with the author would want to do some refuting...but since I have only seen one or two posts attempting to do that and the rest making concerted efforts to create and prop up straw men to avoid discussing Martin Luther, I am guessing the authors position must be credible.
He was very gracious.
There were so many martyrs at the hands of the Nazis. Edith Stein, (St. Benedicta), and St. Maximillian Kolbe who offered himself in place of another when they were taken to starve to death.
He actually sang hymns of praise as the last to die. In fact, they finally injected him with carbolic acid because he wasn’t dying fast enough.
What witnesses! I know what a coward I am!
Sorry, Campion. But that is as much a concocted fiction of Rome as is purgatory. (And the number of Jews Rome supposed "saved" seems to grow by the week.)
Read something besides the lies from Catholic apologists.
I abhor your theology, which denies the efficacy of Christ’s atoning death.
I fear for your eternal soul.
Nobody seems to want to actually refute the article. We sure have some experts in this rhetorical technique on this thread.
I think it's interesting that you respond by merely denigrating the authors I cite rather than by refuting their arguments and evidence.
Why do you think anyone needs the Vatican's approval for Israel's very existence? Israel seemed to have done very well for herself for 50 years without much approval or sympathy from the Vatican; what's changed?
Why is David Dalin, a Jew, merely attempting to kiss up to the Vatican to somehow preserve Israel; while Daniel Goldhagen, a Jew, is courageously telling the truth? Doesn't Goldhagen understand the need to placate the almighty Vatican to preserve Israel's existence?
This article in the Weekly Standard has something to say about Goldhagen's book and its many errors. I'm sure you'll just denounce the author, though.
John Cornwell, whose "Hitler's Pope" started the most recent incarnation of this slanderous idiocy, now says that he can no longer accuse Pius XII of anything in connection with the Holocaust.
That number came from the former Israeli ambassador to Italy, who is a Jew.
This is simply a ludicrous argument, as if Martin Luther would not thoroughly and entirely reject any Christianity that Adolf Hitler espoused.
Because Luther underscored his disappointment that Judaism is an enemy of the gospel does not in the least mean that Luther would have supported the murders of this socialist man, Hitler.
Godwin’s law.
The author of this article automatically loses.
Au contraire, I think Christ's atoning death is wonderfully efficacious.
But if you think your salvation depends on deceiving God the Father by putting you under some sort of "cloak" and smuggling you into heaven with your sins concealed but still intact, not even Christ's atoning death will suffice for that.
Because, you know, neither Jesus nor his righteousness can lie, nor can it cover a lie, nor can it perpetrate a lie.
Jesus identified for us in the Gospels the "father of lies". Who did he say was the father of lies?
How do you know this is an editorial?
Have you looked it up?
The citation I gave was not giving anyone's opinion, was it?
First of all, I have to repeat my thesis: I do not believe myself, nor have I wanted to give the impression, that Luther and Lutheranism are the sole source of our present-day troubles. Economic, political, geographical, and many other causes have to be taken into account if we want to explain the destructive present-day mentality of the Germans, which is above all other causes to blame for the misery in which the modern world finds itself twice within a third of a century.
I did not mean for one minute either to deny that there are things that are good and laudable in Luther—that he pronounced and taught some very fine things which, if they had become the ethical standard of modern Europe, might have brought us peace and prosperity instead of war and misery. All I maintain is that Luther and his doctrines are one of the causes why Europe could follow such a fatal road—that Luther, the man and his teaching, had many disastrous sides, as well as good ones. This negative aspect of Lutheranism is not only generally ignored, but is just the very aspect which as influenced German ethics and standards.
Luther, who is generally shown as a demigod, was nothing of the kind, and his influence was anything but godly. An evil and dangerous legend has been spun round the man and his work. “It is most mysterious how complete the victory of the Luther-legend has been.”
Luther himself led a most immoral life, and destroyed the moral standards of his time. The result of Luther's teachings and his life during his own time was “general moral and religious chaos”. With his denial of reason he produced a complete “decay of intellectual life”. Neitzsche, as so often, describes Luther best when he calls him “a barbarian of the intellect”.
Why respond when posters want to “put words in your mouth”.
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.