Transsexual Lutheran pastor?


Not a martyr. A victim


Heretic and insurrectionist.


Darn those guys who hid luther, huh!

Are you still for killing “heretics”


Of course not. His execution was conducted by secular authorities because he was inciting upheaval and disturbing the rule of law with his heresies. This isn’t an issue in modern times because we don’t have a cohesive unity among citizens in the United States or most other Western nations, it was appropriate at the time but I wouldn’t advocate for it now under present conditions.


We certainly all have to be thankful to God that there is disunity among the citizens of the United States and most other Western nations that keeps His Church from bedding down with the civil authorities that results in the appropriateness of burning human beings alive.


Any similar craziness in the official Catholic Church structure is a result of the craziness that was waiting to be let loose after Vatican II (another main reason why I thank God I have been a member of the traditionalist Catholics ever since my conversion!) You might want to read the writings of Bella Dodd, who explained how that all came to be.


I don’t think that Martin Luther was in favor of transexual ministers, none of his 95 thesis addressed this at all.



What, uh, would need to change in the present conditions, exactly, for you to resume advocating it?


Presumably a return to similar conditions where there is one Church and the catholic faith is the official state religion of Christian nations and someone threatens that unity and stability.

ETA I don’t see that happening anytime in the near future though


A consumation devoutly to be wished, e’en so?


That is the question.


His “trial” and condemnation by the Church.

** Hus could only meet with trouble for such teachings. In 1415 he was summoned to the Council of Constance to defend his teachings. In being conducted there he was victim of one of the dirtiest tricks ever played on a Christian. He was promised safe conduct by the Emperor Sigismund. And he had the papal assurance: “Even if he had killed my own brother . . . he must be safe while he is at Constance.” Yet, Hus was arrested soon after he arrived. He was confined in a cell under a Dominican convent. His cell was right next to a sewer system. In effect, the Council had already made up its mind about this rebel Hus. The Council condemned the teachings of Wycliffe, and Hus was condemned for supporting those teachings. Especially under fire was Hus’s statement that when a pope or bishop is in mortal sin he has ceased to be pope or bishop.
A chapel full of gold
Hus, sick and physically wasted by long imprisonment, illness, and lack of sleep, protested his innocence and refused to renounce his alleged errors unless he could be shown otherwise from Scripture. To the council he said, “I would not, for a chapel full of gold, recede from the truth.”
"I will gladly die"
Formally condemned, he was handed over to the secular authorities to be burned at the stake on July 6, 1415. **


Is it about Luther or about a personal need to support the GLBTQ agenda?


And? I don’t see any of that as egregious. Safe conduct to a place is no guarantee you won’t be arrested when you get there.


Interesting. The Church lying is okie dokie. Silly Jan. He should have known better.
Clearly Father Martin had nothing to fear.


There’s nothing in this about Luther. It isn’t s all about the secular progressive agenda.


The church didn’t lie.


Someone lied on behalf of the Church. They lied to Hus.


By their fruits you will know them. A Catholic priest would never be allowed to do this, because it would go against Christ’s teaching, and those who uphold Christ’s teaching still exist within the Church.


Not sure you want to go there.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit