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

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1651893' date='Sep 9 2008, 10:23 PM']and i asked you before but you never told me, why dont you rep the pope ?? anything to do with being so gosh darn judgemental and self rightous ?? that would be my guess, who knows though, later[/quote]
If not reppin' the pope were reliant on being judgmental, I think a much vaster majority would sport it.
It has to do with some radtrad things that were said in the past, unless I'm mistaken.
Plus, as an observer, I fail to see where he's been self righteous or judgmental...all he's done is quoted official Church documents.

[Guest]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1651904' date='Sep 9 2008, 09:33 PM']I'm saying your argument says that salvation is based on faith alone, which interestingly enough, is a Lutheran heresy, so I don't see why you would be believing it if you are believe in the Catholic religion.

D-S 1559
"Si quis dixerit, sola fide impium iustificari, ita ut intelligat, nihil aliud requiri, quo ad iustificationis gratiam consequendam cooperetur, et nulla ex parte necesse esse, eum suae voluntatis motu praeparari atque disponi: an. s." (Council of Trent, Canon 9 on Justification)

"If anyone shall say that by faith alone the sinner is justified, so as to understand that nothing else is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification, and that it is in no way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will: let him be anathema"[/quote]

lol you are seriously makeing me go smoke, as soon as i finish typeing this....what you are accueing me of is not what i am saying at all, not one bit....ok, here we go AGAIN I am saying that I and any other christian are first and formost saved by faith in Christ and his ressurection. That is what saves us as christians. That is the core teaching of christianity.

Ok, now as a catholic, I know that there is a ton more required of me. I agree that faith without works is dead, I know that I need works to go along with my faith, I never said that I didnt.

BUT I AM SAVED THROUGH MY FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, NOTHEN I CAN DO WILL SAVE ME, IT IS THROUGH FAITH I AM JUSTIFIED, AND THAT IS WHAT ALLOWS ME TO HAVE WORKS TO MAKE MY FATIH ALIVE. SIMPLE.

Ok, a person who is in a nondemoninational church can still have faith and can still have works just because they are not attending a catholic mass. Do I wish for them to go this route ? of course not, but it is pure ignorance to say that they have no shot of haveing faith and works and they will not achieve salvation, and i know the church doesnt teach this, I am now late for work and i must go.

Dude, I love ya man, its increadible all the stuff you know at such a young age,Godbless you man, I read your post about your highschool dance and I enjoyed it. ok dude, peace

Edited September 10, 2008 by Guest

[cmotherofpirl]

I can see why Luther was as evil as Hitler.

[url="http://newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm"]http://newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm[/url]

Luther's Racism

The magazine Christian History, Issue 39, 1993 (published by Christianity Today) devoted a whole issue to Martin Luther's life and legacy. Pages 38-39 quote his work On the Jews and Their Lies which gives us an idea about how moral Luther's views were:

"Set fire to their synagogues and schools. Jewish houses should be razed and destroyed, and Jewish prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, curing, and blasphemy are taught, [should] be taken from them." Their rabbis [should] be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb."

This is a man held to be a moral authority? Luther also urged that "safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews," and that "all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them." What Jews could do was to have "a flail, an ax, a hole, a spade" put into their hands so "young, strong Jews and Jewesses" could "earn their bread in the sweat of their brow." Do you think any Fuhrer you may have heard of might have gleaned an idea or two from that last passage alone? In fact, think of Hitler while reading the next paragraph.

Luther proposed seven measures of "sharp mercy" that German princes could take against Jews: (1) burn their schools and synagogues; (2) transfer Jews to community settlements; (3) confiscate all Jewish literature, which was blasphemous; (4) prohibit rabbis to teach, on pain of death; (5) deny Jews safe conduct, so as to prevent the spread of Judaism; (6) appropriate their wealth and use it to support converts and to prevent the Jews' practice of usury; (7) assign Jews to manual labor as a form of penance.

Is there no clearer blueprint for the Final Solution than the works of one of christianity's greatest reformers and moralists?

Worse yet, Luther was no paper philosopher - he advised clergy, their congregations, and all government officials to help carry out these measures. Since most Jews had been expelled from Germany before 1536, Luther's counsel was implemented by few officials. Yet a harsh anti-Jewish measure in 1543 mentioned Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies.

Both Luther's friends and his foes criticized him for proposing these measures. His best friends begged him to stop his anti-Jewish raving, but Luther continued his attacks in other treatises. He repeated as true the worst anti-Semitic charges from medieval literature: that Jews killed Christian babies; they murdered Christ over and over again by stabbing eucharistic hosts; they poised wells. As usual, he did not allow facts to deter him from his emotionally driven lies.

Luther now thought what he had accused Catholics of thinking in 1523: Jews were dogs. "We are at fault for not slaying them!" he fumed shortly before his death. Yet one more hypocricy for the master of hypocrisy.

While my argument does not rely solely on demonstrating that the writings of Luther inspired the holocaust (Instead, it implicates Hitler's use of christianity's long history of christian persecution of jews), the following passages come from: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_the_Jews"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_the_Jews[/url] help demonstrate Luther's role in the holocaust.

British historian Paul Johnson has called On the Jews and their Lies the "first work of modern anti-Semitism, and a giant step forward on the road to the Holocaust." (Johnson, A History of the Jews, p. 242.)

While some Lutherans deny the charge, the Nazis did cite Luther's treatise to justify the Final Solution (Egil Grislis, "Martin Luther and the Jews," Consensus 27 (2001) No. 1:64.).

The line of "anti-Semitic descent" from Luther to Hitler is "easy to draw," according to American historian Lucy Dawidowicz. In her "The War Against the Jews, 1933-1945", she writes that both Luther and Hitler were obsessed by the "demonologized universe" inhabited by Jews, with Hitler asserting that the later Luther, the author of On the Jews and Their Lies was the 'real Luther'.

Professor Robert Michael, Professor Emeritus of European History at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, has argued that Luther scholars who try to tone down Luther's views on the Jews ignore the murderous implications of his antisemitism. Michael argues that there is a "strong parallel" between Luther's ideas and the anti-Semitism of most German Lutherans throughout the Holocaust. Like the Nazis, Luther mythologized the Jews as evil, he writes. They could be saved only if they converted to Christianity, but their hostility to the idea made it inconceivable (Robert Michael, "Luther, Luther Scholars, and the Jews," Encounter 46:4 (Autumn 1985), pp. 339-56.).

Luther's sentiments were widely echoed in the Germany of the 1930s, particularly within the Nazi party. Hitler's Education Minister, Bernhard Rust, was quoted by the Völkischer Beobachter as saying that: "Since Martin Luther closed his eyes, no such son of our people has appeared again. It has been decided that we shall be the first to witness his reappearance ... I think the time is past when one may not say the names of Hitler and Luther in the same breath. They belong together; they are of the same old stamp [Schrot und Korn]" (Volkischer Beobachter, August 25, 1933 cited in Steigmann-Gall, Richard. The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1991-1945. Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 136-7.).

Hans Hinkel, leader of the Luther League's magazine Deutsche Kultur-Wacht, and of the Berlin chapter of the Kampfbund, paid tribute to Luther in his acceptance speech as head of both the Jewish section and the film department of Goebbel's Chamber of Culture and Propaganda Ministry. "Through his acts and his spiritual attitude, he began the fight which we will wage today; with Luther, the revolution of German blood and feeling against alien elements of the Volk was begun. To continue and complete his Protestantism, nationalism must make the picture of Luther, of a German fighter, live as an example above the barriers of confession for all German blood comrades."
(Steigmann-Gall 2003, p. 137.).

According to Daniel Goldhagen, Bishop Martin Sasse, a leading Protestant churchman, published a compendium Luther's writings shortly after Kristallnacht in which Sasse "applauded the burning of the synagogues and the coincidence of the day, writing in the introduction, "On November 10, 1938, on Luther's birthday, the synagogues are burning in Germany." The German people, he urged, ought to heed these words "of the greatest antisemite of his time, the warner of his people against the Jews." (Bernd Nellessen, "Die schweigende Kirche: Katholiken und Judenverfolgung," in Büttner (ed), Die Deutchschen und die Jugendverfolg im Dritten Reich, p. 265, cited in Daniel Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners (Vintage, 1997)).

William Nichols, Professor of Religious Studies, recounts, "At his trial in Nuremberg after the Second World War, Julius Streicher, the notorious Nazi propagandist, editor of the scurrilous antisemitic weekly, Der Stürmer, argued that if he should be standing there arraigned on such charges, so should Martin Luther. Reading such passages, it is hard not to agree with him. Luther's proposals read like a program for the Nazis." (William Nichols, Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1995), p. 271).

In the course of the Luthertag (Luther Day) festivities, the Nazis emphasized their connection to Luther as being both nationalist revolutionaries and the heirs of the German traditionalist past. An article in the Chemnitzer Tageblatt stated that "[t]he German Volk are united not only in loyalty and love for the Fatherland, but also once more in the old German beliefs of Luther [Lutherglauben]; a new epoch of strong, conscious religious life has dawned in Germany." Richard Steigmann-Gall wrote in his 2003 book The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945:

The leadership of the Protestant League espoused a similar view. Fahrenhorst, who was on the planning committee of the Luthertag, called Luther "the first German spiritual Führer" who spoke to all Germans regardless of clan or confession. In a letter to Hitler, Fahrenhorst reminded him that his "Old Fighters" were mostly Protestants and that it was precisely in the Protestant regions of our Fatherland" in which Nazism found its greatest strength. Promising that the celebration of Luther's birthday would not turn into a confessional affair, Fahrenhorst invited Hitler to become the official patron of the Luthertag. In subsequent correspondence, Fahrenhorst again voiced the notion that reverence for Luther could somehow cross confessional boundaries: "Luther is truly not only the founder of a Christian confession; much more, his ideas had a fruitful impact on all Christianity in Germany." Precisely because of Luther's political as well as religious significance, the Luthertag would serve as a confession both "to church and Volk." (Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945, (Cambridge University Press, 2003), p.138.)

from the rationalist website.

[Guest]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1651908' date='Sep 9 2008, 09:35 PM']If not reppin' the pope were reliant on being judgmental, I think a much vaster majority would sport it.
It has to do with some radtrad things that were said in the past, unless I'm mistaken.
Plus, as an observer, I fail to see where he's been self righteous or judgmental...all he's done is quoted official Church documents.[/quote]


So you are telling me that anyone attending a church other then a catholic church is not going to acheive salvation ?
And again for the 100th time im talking about people attending these churches who have a relationshiop with Christ and are not defiant towards the catholic church.
So answer that question, its really a simple yes or no.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Guest

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1651921' date='Sep 9 2008, 09:44 PM']So you are telling me that anyone attending a church other then a catholic church is not going to acheive salvation ?
And again for the 100th time im talking about people attending these churches who have a relationshiop with Christ and are not defiant towards the catholic church.
So answer that question, its really a simple yes or no.[/quote]
It's actually not a simple yes or no; I'm in no place to make forecasts as to who makes it to heaven and who does not. I will say that I believe that no one attains salvation without the aid of the Universal Church, be it the visible or invisible Church.
But, all I was saying that he has said very little of his own. To disagree with the majority of what he has said is to disagree with Mother Church herself is all I'm contesting.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1651908' date='Sep 9 2008, 08:35 PM']If not reppin' the pope were reliant on being judgmental, I think a much vaster majority would sport it.
It has to do with some radtrad things that were said in the past, unless I'm mistaken.[/quote]

Sadly enough, this is correct.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1651944' date='Sep 9 2008, 11:58 PM']Sadly enough, this is correct. [/quote]
But you have changed

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1651917' date='Sep 9 2008, 11:43 PM']I can see why Luther was as evil as Hitler.

[url="http://newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm"]http://newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm[/url]

Luther's Racism[/quote]

And this is why I won't cross a historian like Don John. Because I'm willing to bet he already knew all this and made his statements with this stuff in mind.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1651921' date='Sep 9 2008, 11:44 PM']So you are telling me that anyone attending a church other then a catholic church is not going to acheive salvation ?
And again for the 100th time im talking about people attending these churches who have a relationshiop with Christ and are not defiant towards the catholic church.
So answer that question, its really a simple yes or no.[/quote]

Mitch is right. Not one of us can know with any degree of certainty who makes it to Heaven. Who is "saved." We can hope, we can pray that they do, but when you get right down to it the only one's we can know for sure have made it are those who have been declared Saint's by the Church. I wouldn't go so far as to condemn anyone to hell, but I sure as certain am not going to say that they are saved either.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='SpareTime' post='1651628' date='Sep 9 2008, 05:57 PM']It resulted in more deaths than Hitler caused? Are we talking physical or spiritual deaths?[/quote]
I said that proportional to the population ofthe time the Religous wars caused by the reformation killed more than the war hitler caused. To give you an idea in Germany alone, the 30 years war alone, killed about 8 million people... the vast majority of whcih were civilians....this does not include deaths in other areas directly or indirectly involved in the war. Further it was out of a MUCH smaller population. That is only one religous war started in Christiandom by Luthers shattering of Christiandom.



PS How did I just not see this thread at all? when was it started.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1651644' date='Sep 9 2008, 06:11 PM']ok, that is also my limited understanding to. I have never thought of him to be an evil man and I also know lutherans who i respect and love and consider my brothers and sisters in Christ.

I do know that hitler was a bastard. Im sorry if some dont like the way that sounds but the bible says that if you are not a son of God, you are a bastard and the son of satan.

So my next question is, if Don Jonn feels this way, and his makeing statements like this, why does he have a church Militant title next to his name ?

No offence Don John, I just think your statements are a little out there.[/quote]


I think you will find that none of my statements ever are out of line with the Church's official teaching. And that if I make a statment of Controversy, I always say that it is MY opinion -- for example I said "I don't think Hitler was as bad as Luther". [b]I did not say [/b]"The Church says Luther was worse than Hitler". Hitler was a monster but Luther was a Priest who betrayed his vows, his order and Holy mother Church. Hitler was a dispicable racist, antiCatholic, general piece of Garbage , but he was not a Formal Heretic, ( he was material heretic) he did not split Christendom, he did not make war Religious life when he himself had taken vows as a monk, and proportionally he was responsible for a lot less bloodshed than Luther.

I am a radical Catholic, but I am absolutely Catholic, you will find that in a sea of those who say the Church says soemthing I am usually the one to quote and cite the actual teaching of the Church, ussually from a Council or Papal document. Why do I have Church militant beside my name? Who do you think that would have it? Who here is more Church militant than me?

[rkwright]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1652045' date='Sep 9 2008, 11:26 PM']I said that proportional to the population ofthe time the Religous wars caused by the reformation killed more than the war hitler caused. To give you an idea in Germany alone, the 30 years war alone, killed about 8 million people... the vast majority of whcih were civilians....this does not include deaths in other areas directly or indirectly involved in the war. Further it was out of a MUCH smaller population. That is only one religous war started in Christiandom by Luthers shattering of Christiandom.



PS How did I just not see this thread at all? when was it started.[/quote]

I bet a higher proportion of jews were killed in certain countries, Germany, Poland, Netherlands, Norway, than the wars you cite. Proportions can be manipulated too easily.

[rkwright]

wiki has these big charts that show wars and the death tolls...

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_...s_by_death_toll[/url]

Total Deaths Estimates

WWII
Low - 40 Million
High - 72 Million

30 Years War
Low - 3 Million
High - 11.5 Million

There weren't any other wars that took place in Europe other than WWI and the Napoleonic wars.

Non-combatant Death Estimates
Nazi Germany
Low- 15.45 Million
High 21 Million

Edited September 10, 2008 by rkwright

[SpareTime]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1651908' date='Sep 9 2008, 09:35 PM']Plus, as an observer, I fail to see where he's been self righteous or judgmental...all he's done is quoted official Church documents.[/quote]

Nancy Pelosi paraphrased something that a great Saint of ours actually said, and I'm pretty sure everyone here bit her head off. I double checked with my theology prof to be sure because I thought maybe she lied about what he said, but she didn't. She paraphrased him in a manner which served her own purposes and which made people think the church was teaching something that it really wasn't. I don't see how this is so different. I have heard priests, theologians, and other great people in the Church call protestants our brothers and sisters in Christ. I am pretty sure they wouldn't say that if the church taught that protestants were not "really" Christians or they don't "really" love God or they aren't "really" repentant.

I am having trouble understanding the whole tags thing here. Bear with me. From what I have observed from reading these boards prior to my joining, and since,"dont rep pope" tags were given to people who may have made several statements against church teaching or maybe even just made one statement that was "iffy" such as that they support the SSPX or something similar... but in one man's case he said that papal supremacy is wrong, but he didn't get a "don't rep pope" tag because Aloysiouus or something said he was "educated"... Why does it appear that he and Don Jon of Austria get a free pass when they say things that the church as a whole certainly does not teach, like, "There is no such thing as a repentant protestant"...? Because he is you guys' personal friend? I just don't understand. When I have my theology degree then will I be able to get away with saying things that cause division among Catholics and that the church doesn't really teach? (Not that I want to or would)...

Don Jon seems very educated and I wouldn't want to get into a debate with him I am just not sure I understand how this whole tagging system works... many people are educated... doesn't mean they are always right.

[SpareTime]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1652051' date='Sep 9 2008, 11:39 PM']Who here is more Church militant than me?[/quote]

How modest.