| 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?
Logic does not appear to be your strong suit. By this understanding I suppose we’re a French nation or even a Viking nation, certainly an indian one. I’m legendarily descended from a half-breed Powhatan whose mother was raped by a Spanish priest, you might know him as Don Luis but most of us who know anything about history know him as the brother of Chief Powhatan, Opechancanough. So, suffice it to say, I’m well aware of the history of Spanish exploration on the east coast. And, again, that does not a founding people make.
Vladimir, you really should check your sources before you attribute them with any authority on a place like Free Republic.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewjasko
Your ‘authority’ on Martin Luther is a graduate of UC Santa Cruz and Princeton Theological Seminary where he...
“Studied public speaking and communication, psychology and mentoring, linguistics, academic writing and research, published and presented articles. Coursework included: Developmental Psychology, Transformational Education, Abnormal Psychology / Psychopathology, Intercultural Education, History and Philosophy of Education, The Minister and Mental Illness, Statistics, Diversity, Human Sexuality and LGBTQ Issues.”
Jasko also wrote an anti-Trump screed that dances around the outright advocacy of assassinating the President here:
http://lifeafterdogma.org/2017/01/27/12-things-we-ignore-about-trumps-genius-and-success/
And here he is flaming out at Burning Man, a liberal festival of Bacchanalia.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/2/1640/26443995106_822395f885_z.jpg
This...THIS is your expert on Martin Luther’s mental condition?
...
So far as I can tell your Catholic expert on Martin Luther is a homosexual, leftist, social justice warrior, narcissist (I mean how many blogs does this guy have????), and my only surprise here is that after seminary he didn;t become a priest.
“My question was in re to the Day of Judgment.”
And so was my response.
“If you believe the Holy, inspired Word of God, it is Jesus who will divide the sheep from the goats.”
They divide themselves first. They choose. We are offered two choices since the beginning. These are essentially the same choices given in Deuteronomy 11:18, 26-28, 32. We choose life or death for all eternity.
The True Disciple. 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’
The Two Foundations. 24 “Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. 26 And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. 27 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.”
“So I ask again, on what basis will Jesus make this separation?”
Don’t you know? I just posted verses that show it pretty well. By the way, those readings from Deuteronomy and Matthew for the readings for the Ninth Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle A.
“This is a simple, straightforward question, based entirely on God’s revealed Word. I hope for a similarly simple, straightforward and Scripturally accurate reply.”
The thread is about Luther. Please make your question about Luther then.
Sure, like everyone who ever disagreed with Rome - and was tortured, maimed, killed, etc., unless they admitted they were wrong.
Like these dear Waldensians who were slaughtered.
My question certainly relates to Luther. We’ll never get that far, however, if you can’t answer simple questions.
Third try. In the following verse, who is separating the sheep from the goats?
32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
Jeez... and I thought they were harsh on the Jehovah’s Witnesses!
“Your ‘authority’ on Martin Luther...”
Where did I claim he was an authority?
“This...THIS is your expert on Martin Luther’s mental condition?”
Again, where did I claim he was my expert on Martin Luther?
“So far as I can tell your Catholic expert on Martin Luther..”
Again, where did I claim he was my expert on Martin Luther? Also, where did I ever claim he was Catholic? I have no idea what his religious beliefs are. I linked to his paper because he has interesting quotes FROM EVEN PROTESTANT SCHOLARS showing Luther was a nut.
The great book on the subject is from Herbert David Rix but you have to pay for that: https://books.google.com/books/about/Martin_Luther.html?id=FQB_TKWpHnwC
All I’m getting from your post is that you can’t actually refute anything in Jasko’s paper so your falsely claiming that I said he was an expert, that he MY expert and are claiming I knew he was Catholic when I had no idea what his religious beliefs are.
Your post reeks of desperation. Can you refute what Jasko wrote? Can you refute what the Protestant scholars he quotes wrote? Anything? No, apparently not.
The truth about my “fountainhead?” My fountainhead is Jesus Christ. How about the truth of your fountainhead (the Pope), and his minions that like to fondle little boys?
How can you lecture me about heresy when the spiritual leader of your “church” is an unapologetic Marxists that washes the feet of Muslims and atheists?
No person who can read Matt 25:32, yet cannot discern who is separating the sheep from the goats, has any claim to the truth. Put another way, if the simplest and most obvious truths in Scripture evade any person’s understanding, then they cannot claim to understand weightier spititual issues.
You claimed his authority when you posted his paper on this site to support your argument.
That’s called “An Appeal to Authority” argument. Ergo, you cited him as an authority. If you didn’t believe the man was an authority on the topic then why bother citing his paper as being authoritative?
Now you’ve cited an obscure Herbert David Rix as an authority and his book is FREE on Google and it has ONE review and only eighteen downloads. Art Sippo thinks the world of it.
Art Sippo is a Catholic apologist who relished the pseudo-intellectual pursuit of psychohistory in which he repeatedly diagnosed historical Protestants such as Martin Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc. as being mentally ill...all of which underlined his overarching premise that Protestant belief itself is a form of mental illness and that only through submission to the RCC could one attain mental health.
Which to me seems like he was ripping off L. Ron Hubbard.
Have any other charlatans you’d like me to tear apart for you? I’m free for about another hour before I have to go start dinner.
- Megan
Also, I’m noticing a concurrence of interests, experience, and similarities in phrasing between you and Mr. Jasko.
Sounds like someone I would have nejoyed having over for dinner!
(-:
Mr. Jasko does sound ripe for the Roman Catholic priesthood, doesn’t he?
Now I’m starting to wonder what Mr. Jasko’s FR screen name might be.
Will the mods yank it? Or not? We shall see.
Let’s play a game! I call it “Connect the Vatican-perv dots”
What's Up With the Synod ^ | June 28, 2017 | Hilary White
Posted on 6/28/2017 4:08:10 PM by ebb tide
June 28, 2017 in Church of Holy Gayness
So, the redoubtable Gloria TV posts today about a piece from an Italian paper reporting that an unnamed curial official has been arrested by the Vatican’s police for his involvement in gay drug orgies.
more....
“Now I’m starting to wonder what Mr. Jasko’s FR screen name might be.”
(-:
What a bigoted and immediately prejudicial screed.
Again. I am puzzled by those who feel the need to denigrate another’s beliefs
I’m not even clicking on your link, because it’s about Spain. We are discussing the nature of the U.S.
Apparently, you think bashing Catholicism or Catholic countries throws some sort of light on the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S was founded by white Protestant Christians. It is not a white country, or a Protestant country, or a Christian country, because the Constitution does not say it is a white, Protestant, Christian country.
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.
