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 ...
Well said.
I don't know what the fine point is that Campion is trying to make. Maybe you could explain what your trying to get at Campion.
LOLOL.
May we submit your name for beatification as the newest hood ornament on next year's Mercedes GL 550?
Let's see a show of hands...
That's right. Another example would be the civil war. Baptists were a big part of the abolitionist movement and were a big supporters of slavery. Hardly perfect or infallible.
The Catholic Church insists that God both declares and makes us objectively righteous by pouring his grace and divine life into our souls. This is not a mere covering or imputation of something; it is a renovation of the whole man. Paul said that all who are baptized into Christ have put on Christ, and are a new creation. Not an old creation with a tarp on it, a new creation. Cleansed. Filled with new life. God's sons and daughters.
Not "snow-covered dungheaps", as Luther wrongly said.
“...you passed them off on the Pope. Clearly your sins must be the Pope’s fault. Everything else bad that ever happened is.”
Except when it’s Bush’s fault right? And isn’t this the same idea? Ignorant people blam Bush for everything. And yet, still more ignorant people blame the pope or the Church for seemingly everything.
And we know what men do when there is something uncomfortable in their hands. They wash themselves of it.
I’m still waiting for a defense of Luther.
Thus far, all they can do is raise strawmen.
Oh, and sully a saint.
In other words, Catholics are all cowards who lack the courage of their convictions?
"Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants' dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution. In the book 'The Jews and Their Lies,' Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent's brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them..."
Indeed, no historian has yet to put Martin Luther on trial for his incitement of crimes against humanity.
Good point.
How do you like that, we actually agree about something. The fact that Luther could be wrong about something doesn't condemn Lutherans does it? From my perspective it only shows he was a fallible human like the rest of us.
“Fallible” in this context might well be the understatement of the year (and it’s only March).
From what I heard, Luther actually had liked the Jews. He expected them to embrace his new way, and when they didn’t, he unleashed his fury on them.
No, he just held the fate of all that money he could make by sullying the Pope's name.
And we know what men do when there is something uncomfortable in their hands. They wash themselves of it.
Don't forget about those Protestants in Germany who actually embraced it.
Interesting. How exactly, did Pope Pius XII "hold the fate of millions of Jews in his hands"?
Do you honestly think that a formal, by-name excommunication of Hitler and his minions, together with some sort of ringing denunciation, would have saved "millions of Jews"?
That's the most the Pope could have done publicly.
Because I don't honestly think it would have accomplished anything (good) except to justify Pius to a few more historians. An equal number of historians would have condemned him for the resulting more vicious persecutions of Jews and Catholics, as well as castigating him as a fool for thinking papers in Latin with pretty wax seals would have stopped Hitler.
As far as saving Jews privately, saving _millions_ of Jews simply wasn't possible logistically. As it is, 860,000 were saved, some by being issued fake baptismal certificates, some by being hidden in the Pope's own palace at Castel Gandolfo, some by being hidden in other religious houses and facilities.
You wrote:
“I’m still waiting for a defense of Luther.”
I think the wait will be very long. Sad to say.
Did I not tell you earlier that a Jew is such a noble, precious jewel that God and all the angels dance when he farts?
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
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.