SpareTime Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 [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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 (edited) [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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 (edited) [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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 (edited) [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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 This is hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 (edited) [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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcePrincessKRS Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts