I Certainly Don't Think Hitler Was As Bad As Luther

[Don John of Austria]

JNow I must be at work much to close to now... I will have to continue later.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1651754' date='Sep 9 2008, 06:50 PM']ya me to....
Golden Child made some comment like don jonn made in the catholics are better thread and father pontifex called him out on it and asked him why even post at phatmass ?? don john then went on to disagree with pontifex and side with golden child....again, it was on the topic about no protestant in the western world being repentent or really loveing God....

another statement from him on that thread : " Your Lutherian friends may indeed go to Heaven, for that matter, Hitler may have as well, that we do not know. "[/quote]

note that I am definitely not known for popular statements here . I am not considered Catholic or any such thing. So you need to consider that when reading my posts. My beliefs can be considered extreme by many, but I don't mean anything personal by them.

[SpareTime]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1652080' date='Sep 10 2008, 12:16 AM']Edit: The quote actually doesn't use the words "believe" it uses the word "aware". Go reread it.[/quote]

I am unsure how one can be "aware" of something without believing it to be true. If they don't believe it is true, they cannot be aware that it is true.

[Winchester]

There is no salvation but through Christ. Kali cannot save you. Nor can Luther. Nor, for that matter, can the pope. Those who attain heaven do so only by way of Jesus's death. Whether you were apparently a member of the Catholic Church (which is the vehicle Christ Himself established through which we attain the salvation He secured for us through His death) or not.

There is one way.

Invincible ignorance cannot mean simply knowledge. We are not gnostics. Knowledge is not enough. I here use knowledge as simply awareness. Most people are aware of the claims of Christ. But there are human defects in intellect caused by our fallen nature that might prevent us from accepting intellectually the claims of Christ. It is not up to us to judge those who are invincibly ignorant. It is not up to us to assume our friends who are not ordinary members of the Church will be saved. We must spread the word and we must try to convert people. It is a difficult task to explain these things and with the wrong words, you can fall to either side. Rejection of Christ is not merely an intellectual affair. The stupid are not going to Hell. Acceptance of Christ is not merely an intellectual affair. The brilliant are not all assured heaven.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1652110' date='Sep 10 2008, 02:24 AM']JNow I must be at work much to close to now... I will have to continue later.[/quote]
Wow it was indeed too late. Lol

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='SpareTime' post='1652114' date='Sep 10 2008, 02:55 AM']I am unsure how one can be "aware" of something without believing it to be true. If they don't believe it is true, they cannot be aware that it is true.[/quote]



You don't know about willful ignorance?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1652130' date='Sep 10 2008, 05:45 AM']There is no salvation but through Christ. Kali cannot save you. Nor can Luther. Nor, for that matter, can the pope. Those who attain heaven do so only by way of Jesus's death. Whether you were apparently a member of the Catholic Church (which is the vehicle Christ Himself established through which we attain the salvation He secured for us through His death) or not.

There is one way.

Invincible ignorance cannot mean simply knowledge. We are not gnostics. Knowledge is not enough. I here use knowledge as simply awareness. Most people are aware of the claims of Christ. But there are human defects in intellect caused by our fallen nature that might prevent us from accepting intellectually the claims of Christ. It is not up to us to judge those who are invincibly ignorant. It is not up to us to assume our friends who are not ordinary members of the Church will be saved. We must spread the word and we must try to convert people. It is a difficult task to explain these things and with the wrong words, you can fall to either side. Rejection of Christ is not merely an intellectual affair. The stupid are not going to Hell. Acceptance of Christ is not merely an intellectual affair. The brilliant are not all assured heaven.[/quote]


Agreed on all counts, but the intellect certianly plays a role. That said I think the stupid are much more likly to attain heaven than the Brilliant as they are more likely to truely be " invincibly ignorant"

[rkwright]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1652109' date='Sep 10 2008, 01:23 AM']I am not capable of seeing the particular judgement of individuals... I have made that clear over and over and over agian. I can however tell you that failing to be a member of the Catholic Church, unless you are ignorant through no fault of your own will prevent you from attaining heaven. This has been revealed to us, by God through the Church. Similarly I can tell you that dying in mortal sin will prevent you from attaining heaven, but I do not presume to know either who is in mortal sin or who, individually is ignorant through no fault of this own.[/quote]

My point is there is no point in arguing over it because when it actually comes to practical terms no one can know what ignorant actually means.

We can only see some of Christ's Church, but we do not know the extent of His Church.

To claim that Luther or the protestants are in hell (you said what is worse, Hitler physically killing people or Luther eternally killing people) is wrong.

We know that without a doubt Hitler caused more physical death's than Luther. You may have an opinion that Luther has caused spiritual deaths, but judging souls is a role I'll leave for God.

[SpareTime]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1652156' date='Sep 10 2008, 07:52 AM']You don't know about willful ignorance?[/quote]

I do, but I don't think it applies here. I think the only way one can be willfully ignorant is if they have been shown something and understand it, but reject it because it isn't what they want to hear, or convince themselves that it must not be true because it isn't what they want to hear... whereas with Catholicism, most people aren't even aware of what the Catholic church actually teaches because of misdirection and misinformation that they have been subjected to.

Think of Oedipus Rex. We just did lecture/class discussion on this in my class the other day with Dr. Holmes. A lot of people read that and they think, "HOW COULD HE NOT KNOW???" at several different points in the book. Some have argued he was in denial--even Freud argued that(but that was probably because Freud wanted to believe that because it supported his wacky claims on sons wanting to sleep with their mothers)--but others have argued, and have a more logical standing, that it was misdirection and misinformation that made him blind to the truth, which seems more probable.

[Barbarus]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1652070' date='Sep 10 2008, 12:02 AM']I don't even think a real response is needed here. Go back and read what you said..... what exactly could posibly be MORE evil than starting your own religion... unless you are going to tell me that physical death is worse than Spiritual--- Eternal Death. And by the by, Luther hated Jews, I mean he HATED them. I think you all should go find some contempary sources on the reformation and see what actually happened in 16th century Germany when Luther decided he knew more than Christ about founding a Church.[/quote]
What I find interesting about Luther is that he consistently in his writings seems to see himself as still working inside the Church for reform, rather than as a revolutionary instituting a new religion.

He was very passionate, and I believe he was sincere in his efforts to understand truth, although he clearly lacked humility. I think he was scrupulous too ... there is evidence that he never felt his sins were completely forgiven, and was compelled at times to re-enter the confessional immediately after leaving it. This is one of the things that led him to question the way Catholic teaching addressed sinfulness.

I think it is important to keep in mind that many of the abuses that Luther addressed WERE abuses. The papacy was not in a good place at that time. Luther's actions were perhaps not in certain places well-advised, but you also have to keep in mind that there were other forces operating within the church that contributed to decay in certain areas. Luther's actions alone were not enough to cause the damage that resulted; he (I think unwittingly) hit at very soft, vulnerable spots in the church, and his blows caused far more damage than he could have anticipated.

If you must demonize a reformer, I think Calvin is a much better candidate than Luther.

[SpareTime]

[quote name='Barbarus' post='1652204' date='Sep 10 2008, 09:38 AM']If you must demonize a reformer, I think Calvin is a much better candidate than Luther.[/quote]

Agreed completely!

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1652193' date='Sep 10 2008, 10:13 AM']My point is there is no point in arguing over it because when it actually comes to practical terms no one can know what ignorant actually means.

We can only see some of Christ's Church, but we do not know the extent of His Church.

To claim that Luther or the protestants are in hell (you said what is worse, Hitler physically killing people or Luther eternally killing people) is wrong.

[color="#FF0000"]We know that without a doubt Hitler caused more physical death's than Luther[/color]. You may have an opinion that Luther has caused spiritual deaths, but judging souls is a role I'll leave for God.[/quote]


Do we know that for a fact? Really? I have a fairly good knowledge of 16th and 17th century history and I am not sure that is the case. even if we credit Hitler for ALL of the 50 million deaths in WWII including those in the Pacific theater I am not sure that that is true, I would have to do some significant research. Regardless I have no doubt that proportional to the population of the effected areas Luther caused a great deal more physical death.

Do we know who individually is in Hell-- [b][i]NO[/i][/b] my [b][i]absolute [/i][/b] statment of that was what started all of this. But we also know that holding to certian Lutheran doctrines Anathamizes you, it seperates you from the Church, and that those seperated from the Church, do in fact, go to Hell. We can only hope, and I do hope and pray, that those who hold such views are indeed ignorant through no fault of their own.

I certianly never judged souls, I simply defended my position that we do not know who is in heaven, that indeed individual Lutherans could be in heaven, just as Hitler [i]could[/i] be. This shocked certian members of the board, and they asked how I could make such a comparision (who is judgeing souls here?) and I answered honestly, that [b][i]I[/i][/b] think Luther was worse than Hitler... I have given ample reason why, and I feel that this is enough justification for my exremly orthodox view on the matter.

You in particular asked for Dogmatic Church documents supporting my position, I provided them, several of them... step off.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Barbarus' post='1652204' date='Sep 10 2008, 10:38 AM']What I find interesting about Luther is that he consistently in his writings seems to see himself as still working inside the Church for reform, rather than as a revolutionary instituting a new religion.

He was very passionate, and I believe he was sincere in his efforts to understand truth, although he clearly lacked humility. I think he was scrupulous too ... there is evidence that he never felt his sins were completely forgiven, and was compelled at times to re-enter the confessional immediately after leaving it. This is one of the things that led him to question the way Catholic teaching addressed sinfulness.

I think it is important to keep in mind that many of the abuses that Luther addressed WERE abuses. The papacy was not in a good place at that time. Luther's actions were perhaps not in certain places well-advised, but you also have to keep in mind that there were other forces operating within the church that contributed to decay in certain areas. Luther's actions alone were not enough to cause the damage that resulted; he (I think unwittingly) hit at very soft, vulnerable spots in the church, and his blows caused far more damage than he could have anticipated.

If you must demonize a reformer, I think Calvin is a much better candidate than Luther.[/quote]

The Church was in the process of reform when Luther started his rebellion, and Luther KNEW about the efforts in Rome to do so


But this is going no where. I was Challenged, I answered, I have explained my position, others ( thank you guys for saving me the time I really appreciate it) have provided you with additional historical reasons for my position and I have provided Church documents to support my position.

If we have reached an impasse so be it.... but I fail to see what point continuing this serves.

[rkwright]

Step off? Haha thats a new argument...

Anyways...

How is your opinion that Luther was worse than Hitler 'extremely orthodox'?

Edited September 10, 2008 by rkwright

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1652236' date='Sep 10 2008, 11:44 AM']Step off? Haha thats a new argument...

Anyways...

How is your opinion that Luther was worse than Hitler 'extremely orthodox'?[/quote]


My view tha one cannot know who in particular is in heaven or in Hell, accepting the canonized saints, that this would even include the possibility that Hitler is in heaven is...extremely orthodox.
This was what started the discussion, the juxtiposition of those out side of the Church with someone who is generally recognized as a nasty and evil person. However, that juxtiposition is extremly orthodox... we cannot know the fate of anyone, we do not know whoo other than a few Holy people, is in heaven and who is in Hell. That agian is extrmely Orothodox.

Now as to your question on Luther vs Hitler.... well here is an excerpt from Pope Leo X Papal bull EXSURGE DOMINE condemning Luther.

[i]With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected….We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication....

Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places.[/i]


This is the Chruches reaction to Luther... can you find a similar document excommunicating everyone who even defends the Nazi party, to read their books, or agree with them even implicity? So which exactly did the Church concider worse? Can you explain to me how my positition is not orthodox?




And as for Arguement? Have you made an arguement? I must have missed it, I have seen you ask questions , make assertions and seek to antagonze but I have yet to see and arguement from you. Have you any [i]evidence[/i] for your position?

Edited September 10, 2008 by Don John of Austria

[rkwright]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1652267' date='Sep 10 2008, 11:35 AM']My view tha one cannot know who in particular is in heaven or in Hell, accepting the canonized saints, that this would even include the possibility that Hitler is in heaven is...extremely orthodox.
This was what started the discussion, the juxtiposition of those out side of the Church with someone who is generally recognized as a nasty and evil person. However, that juxtiposition is extremly orthodox... we cannot know the fate of anyone, we do not know whoo other than a few Holy people, is in heaven and who is in Hell. That agian is extrmely Orothodox.

Now as to your question on Luther vs Hitler.... well here is an excerpt from Pope Leo X Papal bull EXSURGE DOMINE condemning Luther.

[i]With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected….We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication....

Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places.[/i]


This is the Chruches reaction to Luther... can you find a similar document excommunicating everyone who even defends the Nazi party, to read their books, or agree with them even implicity? So which exactly did the Church concider worse? Can you explain to me how my positition is not orthodox?




And as for Arguement? Have you made an arguement? I must have missed it, I have seen you ask questions , make assertions and seek to antagonze but I have yet to see and arguement from you. Have you any [i]evidence[/i] for your position?[/quote]

How does a Church document speaking out against Luther make him worse than Hitler? Should we say that all the great heresies are worse than Hitler no matter what the bloodshed just because a specific Church document references it?

Hitler or Luther being worse hardly seems like a subject one can be more or less orthodox on.

Isn't shifting the burden of proof a logical fallacy? You're making the claims that your opinion that Luther was worse than Hitler is extremely orthodox. You're the one who needs to prove the position.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1652286' date='Sep 10 2008, 12:51 PM']How does a Church document speaking out against Luther make him worse than Hitler? Should we say that all the great heresies are worse than Hitler no matter what the bloodshed just because a specific Church document references it?

Hitler or Luther being worse hardly seems like a subject one can be more or less orthodox on.

Isn't shifting the burden of proof a logical fallacy? You're making the claims that your opinion that Luther was worse than Hitler is extremely orthodox. You're the one who needs to prove the position.[/quote]


But that is not what I said, and I have repeatedly explained my position... you just don't like it.

And no asking you to make an arguement is not a logical fallacy. The burden of proof fallacy is when a lack of evidence for one side is taken as evidence for the other side. I HAVE provided evidence--- you have not. In fact, you have not even argued a position, you have no side. There is no reason why the burden of proof should rest on me anymore than on you... I am not making wild claims like "I invented the question mark" nor am I the prosecution in a Court under English common law. Either MAKE AN ARGUEMENT or kindly quite yourself.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Don John of Austria

[Fidei Defensor]

This is hilarious.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1652286' date='Sep 10 2008, 12:51 PM']How does a Church document speaking out against Luther make him worse than Hitler? Should we say that all the great heresies are worse than Hitler no matter what the bloodshed just because a specific Church document references it?[/quote]


That is not the question you asked. You seem to not really understand how arguement works. You asked how I could justify the orthodoxy of a particular opinion, I found that the Chruch specifically condemned not just Luther but all of those that agreed with him even in their private conscience. Yet there is not a single such declaration agianst the Nazi's, that certianly does answer to the ORTHODOXY of my position. If you wish to disagree then provide a counter arguement, make a case that bloodshed trumps heresy, and schism in grade of Evil and provide some sort of evidence to back it up. Until you do ,you are just a Troll.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Don John of Austria

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1652224' date='Sep 10 2008, 12:15 PM']If we have reached an impasse so be it.... but I fail to see what point continuing this serves.[/quote]

I agree... This seems to be heading in a circular direction. DJ has answered the topic question, everyone had their say, I am closing this. The repeated questioning of his orthodoxy and "how is it that he gets to be Church Militant" borders on personal attacks (if it doesn't directly hit the mark). He has provided enough official Church documents that that line of thought should be done. The thread starter even said that he had not intended to "start trouble." Step back folks.

ETA: since certain parties seem to be misconstruing my words here, let me clarify: DJ was given a chance to answer the OP's question and to defend himself against criticism of his Catholicity and orthodoxy. Those remarks and accusations crossed the line. DJ clarified his positions, cited Church documents, and noted what was HIS OPINION. It doesn't take a Phd to read carefully and see the difference. As a moderator I will not allow the repeated attacks on his character, so the thread is closed. This entire thread has come to, as DJ noted, an impasse.