Pope to Commemorate Protestant Revolt

Remnant Newspaper ^ | October 29, 2016 | David Martin

[ebb tide]

In what is being hailed as a milestone in the ongoing progress toward Catholic-Lutheran unity, Pope Francis will celebrate the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation on October 31 [Halloween!], in Lund, Sweden. At 2:00 pm, the pope will participate in an ecumenical prayer service in the Lutheran cathedral in Lund, where he will deliver a sermon aimed at strengthening ecumenical ties between the two religions.

Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, sums it up. "For the very first time, Catholics and Lutherans will commemorate together, at the global level, the anniversary of the Reformation. This event, which is to mark a milestone, reflects the progress made over fifty years of international Catholic-Lutheran dialogue. Established after the important decisions made by Vatican Council II, the dialogue has helped the two traditions to understand each other better. It has enabled them to put an end to a good number of antagonisms.... It has affirmed the common conviction that what unites Catholics and Lutherans, matters more than what divides them. It has given expression to the profound faith conviction that Catholics and Lutherans are called by baptism to be part of one and the same body."

The celebration will obviously not uphold the Church's centuries-old condemnation of Martin Luther, but will praise him in keeping with the German Bishops' Conference statement of last August, that Luther—the founder of the Protestant Reformation—was a "Gospel witness and teacher of the Faith" who hasn't been given an "adequate hearing."

Bishop Gerhard Feige, chairman of the German Bishops Ecumenical Commission, stoked the fire to this anniversary celebration when he said that "the Catholic Church may recognize today what was important in the Reformation" on the grounds that theological differences have been "re-evaluated."

Are the bishops daring to "re-evaluate" the Church's condemnation of Martin Luther in the sixteenth century? Are they accusing the Council of Trent of having been "antagonistic" for rightfully refuting Luther's errors for the greater liberty of God's people?

If there is one figure of history who can be called antagonistic, it is Martin Luther. Consider his own words about the Catholic Church: "We too were formerly stuck in the behind of this hellish whore, the new church of the pope... so that we regret having spent so much time and energy in that vile h***. But God be praised and thanked that he rescued us from the scarlet whore." (Luther's Works, Vol. 41, p. 206)

Again Luther says: "I can with good conscience consider the pope an ass and an enemy of God. He cannot consider me an ass, for he knows that I am more learned in the Scriptures than he and all his asses are." (p. 344) "The papal ass wants to be lord of the church, although he is not a Christian, believes nothing, and can no longer do anything but fart like an ass." (p. 358)

We seem to forget that Luther was a raving heretic who was driven by the devil to tear the Faith asunder in Europe. His definition of "repentance" was to reject Catholicism, evidenced by his hateful words against the Mass: "It is indeed upon the Mass as on a rock that the whole papal system is built, with its monasteries, its bishoprics, its collegiate churches, its altars, its ministries, its doctrine, i.e., with all its guts. All these cannot fail to crumble once their sacrilegious and abominable Mass falls." (Martin Luther, Against Henry, King of England, 1522, Werke, Vol. X, p. 220.)

These words shouldn't surprise us when we consider Luther's contempt for spirituality, and the fact that the Mass through the ages has been the very focal point of Satan's attack. The Mass indeed is the very center-piece of the Christian Faith—the very heartbeat of Christ's Mystical Body—therefore the adversary raised up Luther as his no. 1 cannon to blow the Mass apart before God's people. In his pamphlet The Abrogation of the Mass, Luther writes:

"I am convinced that by these three arguments [which he had previously made] every pious conscience will be persuaded that this priest of the Mass and the papacy is nothing but a work of satan, and will be sufficiently warned against imagining that by these priests anything pious or good is effected. All will now know that these sacrificial Masses have been proven injurious to Our Lord’s testament and that therefore nothing in the whole world is to be hated and loathed so much as the hypocritical shows of this priesthood, its Masses, its worship, its piety, its religion. It is better to be a public pander or robber than one of these priests."

Has it not occurred to our befogged Vatican hierarchy that Luther was possessed by Satan? It would behoove them to read his famous colloquy with the devil in 1522, which is documented in Abraham Woodhead's superlative book The Spirit of Martin Luther (1687). Therein is discussed Luther's "negotiations" and "conferences" with the devil. In his de Missa Privata & Sacerdotum Unctione (1533), Luther wrote of his "long experience" with Satan's "arts and practices" and of "many a sad and bitter night" spent in talks with him.

However, his colloquy on the Mass in 1522 was most significant, since this is what turned him against the Mass, whereby he would never offer Mass again. On that occasion, the devil in a "grave and strong voice" persuaded Luther that he had committed "idolatry" for fifteen years by adoring, and causing others to adore "naked bread and wine."

These same conversations with Satan are what gave birth to Luther's doctrine on justification. Through this infernal colloquy, the devil convinced Luther that we must accept our sinful lives as they are, and he instilled in him a false security about the sins we commit. Hence was born his crackpot idea that Jesus died on the cross so that we may sin freely without the fear of eternal punishment. Consider Luther’s own words:

"Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly... No sin will separate us from the Christ, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day." (From Luther’s letter to Philip Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, LW Vol. 48, pp. 281-282)

Needless to say, Luther was no champion of the Gospel, but a disciple of the "father of liars." Each one of his charges against the Catholic Church were irrational and false. For instance, he accused the clergy of "selling indulgences" in the confessional, which is not true. When penitents came to confession it was common at that time for priests to administer a penance in the form of having them place money in the Church’s treasury, because funds were needed to complete the Basilica of St. Peters in Rome. We might say a Peter’s pence was being raised, which should have excited praise, but this infuriated Luther because he couldn’t tolerate the idea of funding the "papal pig" and his palace.

Another black mark on Luther's reputation was that he rejected six books of the Bible and spearheaded his heinous revolt against Christ which led half of Europe away from the Christian Faith.

It was for reason that Pope Leo X dubbed Luther "the wild boar loose in the vineyard." He was the classic hypocrite and Pharisee, constantly "justifying" himself and accusing everyone of what he himself was guilty of. What could be said of the worst pagans and infidels of history would apply especially to Luther—he had no "faith" or "grace."

Accordingly, Luther contributed mightily to the mass murder of 70,000-100,000 peasants during the German Peasant War (1524-1525), which his Reformation helped to spark. Consider the following from Luther: "To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Therefore, let whoever can, smite, slay, and stab them secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful or devilish than a rebel…. On the obstinate, hardened, blinded peasants let no one have mercy, but let whoever is able, hew, stab, and slay them like mad dogs." (Erlangen Edition of Luther’s Works, Vol. 24)

Luther furthermore blasphemed Christ, thus revealing his deficit of faith. For instance, he said, "Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well… Secondly with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery." (Luther’s Works, American Edition, Volume 54, p. 154, Concordia Publishing House)

Hence the Catholic Church committed no fault in its response to the Revolt five centuries ago, which means no apologies must be made today. The papal condemnation of Luther in 1521 was the work of the Holy Spirit, and remains binding upon the faithful to this day. Any attempts to "reevaluate" the "Reformation" are absurd, so why is the pope attempting to dignify what has unquestionably gone down to be the most destructive heresy of Christian history?

What we're seeing is the work of charity despised. For centuries the Church has demonstrated no "antagonism" toward separated brethren, but has rather extended to them the invitation to convert to Roman Catholicism, that they may possess the riches of Christ and share in the communion of saints.

Why then is Rome attempting to deprive outsiders by telling them to stay as they are? The pope has repeatedly said that we must not try to convince outsiders and separated brethren of our convictions about the One True Faith, on the grounds that it is "a sin against ecumenism."

Did Christ ever once tell His Apostles not to convince the infidels and Gentiles of the One True Faith He established, or did He rather tell them, "Going forth, teach all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?" (Matthew 28:19)

[ebb tide]

Has it not occurred to our befogged Vatican hierarchy that Luther was possessed by Satan? It would behoove them to read his famous colloquy with the devil in 1522, which is documented in Abraham Woodhead's superlative book The Spirit of Martin Luther (1687). Therein is discussed Luther's "negotiations" and "conferences" with the devil. In his de Missa Privata & Sacerdotum Unctione (1533), Luther wrote of his "long experience" with Satan's "arts and practices" and of "many a sad and bitter night" spent in talks with him.

However, his colloquy on the Mass in 1522 was most significant, since this is what turned him against the Mass, whereby he would never offer Mass again. On that occasion, the devil in a "grave and strong voice" persuaded Luther that he had committed "idolatry" for fifteen years by adoring, and causing others to adore "naked bread and wine."

[Mjreagan]

This guy is here to destroy my Church. Get rid of him.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Ha! What a quote! 😂😂😂

[BRL]

As a lifelong proud protestant , I am now having second thoughts if Pope Francis is Commemorating it.

[ealgeone]

Luther furthermore blasphemed Christ, thus revealing his deficit of faith. For instance, he said, "Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well… Secondly with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery." (Luther’s Works, American Edition, Volume 54, p. 154, Concordia Publishing House)

Understand. I am not defending Luther with what I post.

I post only for purpose so the reader will have context...something roman catholics seem to ignore.

“Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has he been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalene , and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.” ( Table Talk , Weimar edition, vol. 2., no. 1472, April 7 - May 1, 1532; Wiener, p. 3 3).

http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/Martin%20Luther%20Quotes.pdf

f you run across a Roman Catholic citing these words against Luther (or any obscure comments from Luther's Table Talk) I commend to you also these words by Roman Catholic Scholar Thomas O’Meara:

“…Catholics are using inaccurately rhetorical arguments when they make the value of Luther’s theology and reform depend upon his table-talk language. Rhetoric appeals to the mind- but it appeals through emotions. It reaches the mind not through a purely intellectual act, examining the case thoroughly and logically, but by leaps and bounds, driven by emotions and will, faculties incapable of a calm judgment of what is true” [Thomas O’Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966), 5].

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/12/luther-said-christ-committed-adultery.html

[ebb tide]

Your supposedly "Roman Catholic scholar", O'Meara, was an outright heretic, just like Luther was a heretic Catholic priest.

Another thing I notice in Sister Kaye’s discussion of ordination, is an omission: she does not present it as a Sacrament. She cites a Dominican friar I heard give an extraordinarily theologically dodgy talk at the Sinsinawa-sponsored Edgewood College earlier this year, Fr. Thomas O’Meara, who wants to define ordination liturgies “not as a liturgical exercise of episcopal power, not as something bestowed by juridical decree, but as a ‘… communal liturgy of public commissioning to a specific ministry.'” And as if to make it quite unambiguous she doesn’t approach priestly ordination as being a Sacrament, Kaye says, “And can we hope someday to arrive at a theology of ministry in which distinctions between lay ministry and clerical ministry, ordained and non-ordained ministry, will be meaningless?” Martin Luther and his followers had pretty much the same “hope” and consequently they do not have most of the Sacraments.

[ealgeone]

As I said, I’m not defending Luther. Just providing context.

[RitaOK]

The title of this article proves the globalist theology of the Pope in action.

This means there is an effort underway that attempts to make the Catholic Church no longer a “peculiar people, a holy nation”.

Vatican II was a disaster, and just the same way as the condition of our government the Church is infiltrated with her enemies, who are protestant to every living thing the Church treasures for centuries.

Catholic identity is in the cross hairs. But, for the remnant, who are kept starved as neglected lambs, with neither a Shepherd, nor a Mother— both having been run off by the otherwise tickled ears of the flock, who came before them.

The “Protestant” offshoots are all finely chopped up among themselves, each having their own version of a “pope” running them, or else himself being run over, by the singular interpretation of any man sitting on this or that “busy committee”.

Nothing surprises me. I am compelled to pray and groan and attempt to remain always in a state of grace, given the times, through the Blessed Sacraments.

[mazda77]

Just goes to show just how bad off “The Church” (Catholic) really is. They willfully sold their souls in regards to trying to coverup the sexual predators in the ranks of the priests and then again recently when they willfully promoted a socialist as their leader. Their core has gone by the wayside with this idiot called a Pope willfully embracing the advancement of the Caliphate while chastising our hopeful leader for proposing the walls for us that he hides behind from the advancement of the same in his own back yard.

As learned in the Advanced Leadership Courses I was required to attend while in the military, I took so much of it to heart because it not only was applicable to my service to this country but it was ironically even more so to my subsequent civilian life. It is not about me but instead for those whom I am honored with the awesome responsibility to lead.

[DesertRhino]

A heretic? John Paul II is well loved by all. In 1983, the 500th anniversary of the birth of Martin Luther, John Paul preached at the Lutheran congregation in Rome, praising the reformer’s piety and evangelical zeal.

So John Paul II went to his church and had good things to say about “a heretic”. This modern Luther hate is retarded. The church back then was in error and its leadership was deeply corrupted.
if it wasn’t Luther, someone else would have been the one to step up and stop the party.
The Church owes him a thanks.
Its idiotic to pretend the church back then was in the right and that Luther was wrong. And its just as idiotic for someone today to dislike the Catholic church of today for its mistakes of 500 years ago.

[ConservativeMind]

I am glad to be reminded of this anniversary.

I believe both men (the Pope and Luther), at that time, had issues.

The world is demonstrably better off before God with the Protestant Reformation.

[CraigEsq]

Wow, what a crackpot article. Here’s what Luther ACTUALLY wrote, the material conveniently omitted by the elipsis included:

“If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong [or sin boldly], but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.”

And all this about hating the mass? Well, that’s bigly at odds with what is the actual result...

“
1] Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among 2] us, and celebrated with the highest reverence. Nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved, save that the parts sung in Latin are interspersed here and there with German hymns, which have been added 3] to teach the people. For ceremonies are needed to this end alone that the unlearned 4] be taught [what they need to know of Christ]. And not only has Paul commanded to use in the church a language understood by the people 1 Cor. 14:2-9, but it has also been so ordained by man’s law. 5] The people are accustomed to partake of the Sacrament together, if any be fit for it, and this also increases the reverence and devotion of public 6] worship. For none are admitted 7] except they be first examined. The people are also advised concerning the dignity and use of the Sacrament, how great consolation it brings anxious consciences, that they may learn to believe God, and to expect and ask of Him all that is good. 8] [In this connection they are also instructed regarding other and false teachings on the Sacrament.] This worship pleases God; such use of the Sacrament nourishes true devotion 9] toward God. It does not, therefore, appear that the Mass is more devoutly celebrated among our adversaries than among us.”

http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article24

Well now that doesn’t sound like someone who hates the Mass, does it? (Yes, I know, this wasn’t actually written by Luther, but by Melanchton, but I think the point still stands...) So why did he have such a problem with the Mass as it was being done? Well that’s nicely explained too...

“10] But it is evident that for a long time this also has been the public and most grievous complaint of all good men that Masses have been basely profaned and applied to purposes of lucre. 11] For it is not unknown how far this abuse obtains in all the churches by what manner of men Masses are said only for fees or stipends, and how many celebrate them contrary to the Canons. 12] But Paul severely threatens those who deal unworthily with the Eucharist when he says, 1 Cor. 11:27: Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 13] When, therefore our priests were admonished concerning this sin, Private Masses were discontinued among us, as scarcely any Private Masses were celebrated except for lucre’s sake.

14] Neither were the bishops ignorant of these abuses, and if they had corrected them in time, there would now be less dissension. Heretofore, 15] by their own connivance, they suffered many corruptions to creep into the Church. Now, when it is too late, they begin to complain 16] of the troubles of the Church, while this disturbance has been occasioned simply by those abuses which were so manifest that they could be borne no longer. There have been great 17] dissensions concerning the Mass, concerning the Sacrament. 18] Perhaps the world is being punished for such long-continued profanations of the Mass as have been tolerated in the churches for so many centuries by the very men who 19] were both able and in duty bound to correct them. For in the Ten Commandments it is written, Ex. 20:7: The Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain. But since 20] the world began, nothing that God ever ordained seems to have been so abused for filthy lucre as the Mass.

21] There was also added the opinion which infinitely increased Private Masses, namely that Christ, by His passion, had made satisfaction for original sin, and instituted the Mass wherein an offering should be made for daily sins, 22] venial and mortal. From this has arisen the common opinion that the Mass 23] takes away the sins of the living and the dead by the outward act. Then they began to dispute whether one Mass said for many were worth as much as special Masses for individuals, and this brought forth that infinite multitude of Masses. [With this work men wished to obtain from God all that they needed, and in the mean time faith in Christ and the true worship were forgotten.]”

[ebb tide]

On that occasion, the devil in a "grave and strong voice" persuaded Luther that he had committed "idolatry" for fifteen years by adoring, and causing others to adore "naked bread and wine."

Do you adore "naked bread and wine"?

[xone]

Luther says: "I can with good conscience consider the pope an ass and an enemy of God.

Sounds like a lot of Catholics on this forum.

[ebb tide]

Most Catholics who disapprove of Bergoglio don’t hate their Catholic religion or the Catholic Mass and Sacraments, as Luther hated them.

[CraigEsq]

Do you adore “naked bread and wine”?

---

Well we don’t “adore” the communion elements. But this we do believe:

Augsburg Confession, Article X: Of the Lord’s Supper.

1] Of the Supper of the Lord [Lutheran Churches] teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.

http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php

Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article X: Of the Holy Supper.

54] The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

http://bookofconcord.org/defense_8_holysupper.php#article10

While those were written by Philip Melanchton, they are (supposed to be) the official doctrine of Lutheran Churches. But Luther himself said the following:

“Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
—Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

So no, it is not “naked” bread and wine. If Luther did indeed say that, I can’t say why, and it goes against everything else he seemed to say.

[ebb tide]

So you Lutherans contradict Luther?

Interesting!

[ebb tide]

See how protestantism grows and multiplies like a cancer?

[dsc]

“A heretic? John Paul II is well loved by all.”

Not all.

“In 1983, the 500th anniversary of the birth of Martin Luther, John Paul preached at the Lutheran congregation in Rome, praising the reformer’s piety and evangelical zeal.”

And there is one reason some do not love him.

“The church back then was in error”

That is incorrect.

“and its leadership was deeply corrupted.”

It does indeed appear that *some* of the mortal men who temporarily occupied positions in the eternal Church were abusing their authority.

The correct course of action was not to create a heresy and separate from the supernatural Bride of Christ.

“The Church owes him a thanks.”

Really? Do you suppose God thanks him for subjecting millions to spiritual impoverishment?

“Its idiotic to pretend the church back then was in the right and that Luther was wrong.”

And what is it to fail to separate the Church and its teachings from the abuses of mortal men? Luther was not only in the wrong, he was a wrong’un.

“And its just as idiotic for someone today to dislike the Catholic church of today for its mistakes of 500 years ago.”

Blaming the Church for selling indulgences is like saying that medical science should be abolished because doctors have been known to commit malpractice. We seem to have little trouble separating doctors’ job performance from the basic concept of medical treatment.

[xone]

Most Catholics

I said some, you said most. You change the subject. How does what Luther said about the Pope differ from what you say and imply?