Was the devil part of the Deformation...I mean Reformation?


#1

I hate to say it that way but it kinda makes me wonder because our other brethren don’t have the fullness of TRUTH and they need to know it!

It’s like as if Satan got Martin Luther to think the way he did and thought it would be funny to lead people away from the Truth, therefore, people “twist” things around, etc.?? Did the devil cause Luther to branch apart from the CC?!?!

Just a thought.


#2

Hi there!

You know, I wouldn’t doubt it for an instant. For 1500 years holy mother church stood as a beacon in the mist. Then Luther and those that came after him show up, and in the past 500 years more than 35,000 different denominatons have sprouted up, all claiming to be the way to the Lord, leading probably millions away from the truth.

We can look at the reformation as simply another of Satan’s tools, the reformation certainly was the beginning of another assault on the Church, and it continues to this day.

Pray every day for those that lead the Roman Catholic Church, and that those fallen astray to the protestant heresies hear God’s call to return.

Stephen


#3

Without a doubt.

The devil is behind EVERYTHING that leads people away from the truth of God. This isn’t to say that all of those are possesed by Satan, merely that they have been duped, ala Adam and Eve. Very sad indeed…


#4

[quote=Paris Blues]Did the devil cause Luther to branch apart from the CC?!?!
[/quote]

Hi Paris,

I wouldn’t go as far as to say the devil “caused” Luther in to schism. That would imply that Luther did not have free will. Schism is a sin and the devil tempts us to sin. Luther freely chose schism.

Catechism:

817
In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church—for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body—here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism—do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.


#5

yes, both sides were to blame… Luther should have continued to
fight within the church, but he was a man, and men can lose
hope, which, i believe, he did… which is a sin…

if you read the 95 thesis, which was appearently the breaking
point of no return, Luther didn’t really express anything that we
would consider heresy…, or rather i have not found it to be so…
but, in the time it was, and he was dealt with accordingly…

we need to recall, that in those days people were put to death
for translating the bible into english…

that said, i am Catholic, the church has survived problems in
the past, and will survive problems in the future… it will continue
to grow in it’s understanding and endure to the end of the age…

thank God…

:slight_smile:


#6

I think the thing people have to remember is that a lot of what Luther said about problems in the church was right, though his theology was way off. Thinking that the Church (not the divinely instituted part of it, of course) was lily white before Luther is pretty ignorant of history.


#7

A very good point, which often gets overlooked. A sad case of a man who saw problems, but reacted poorly.

He himself was appaled at how far the break from the Church actually went while he was still alive.

Not to mention, he had mental issues, and trauma with his father, which man believe he transposed onto The Father, our God.

I recommend Ken Hensley’s talks on Luther (Hensley is a former Lutheran minister), they are very enlightening.


#8

[quote=Paris Blues]It’s like as if Satan got Martin Luther to think the way he did and thought it would be funny to lead people away from the Truth, therefore, people “twist” things around, etc.?? Did the devil cause Luther to branch apart from the CC?!?!
Just a thought.
[/quote]

HI Paris Blues,

You are not the first to come to this type of conclusion. It was a very common Roman Catholic opinion for a very long time.

For instance, the Roman Catholic writer Henry O’Connor wrote Luther’s Own Statements Concerning His Teaching and its Results. The book is an old small anthology of Luther quotes (from 1884). O’Connor says of Luther’s teaching on justification: “Luther received the full and unqualified approval of the Devil for these new doctrines. It was the Devil who spoke in favor of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and against Mass, Mary, and the Saints.” By the end of the book, O’Connor is convinced Luther “pretends to be a Reformer” and was sent by Satan.

Father Patrick O’Hare in his book, The Facts About Luther stated, “If the author of such an infamous suggestion as is involved in the words ‘sin boldly’ was not a child of Satan, none ever labored so strenuously in advancing his soul-destroying principles.” He said also, "The serpent’s rattle made itself distinctly heard in his unholy utterances…”

During Luther’s lifetime, one of Luther’s first biographers was also a great adversary with lasting impact: Johannes Cochlaeus. Cochlaeus spent a great deal of his life writing against Luther, and went so far as maintaining printing presses at his own cost to make sure his work was published. He said of Luther:

“Luther is a child of the devil, possessed by the devil, full of falsehood and vainglory. His revolt was caused by monkish envy of the Dominican, Tetzel; he lusts after wine and women, is without conscience, and approves any means to gain his end. He thinks only of himself. He perpetrated the act of nailing up the theses for forty two gulden- the sum he required to buy a new cowl. He is a liar and a hypocrite, cowardly and quarrelsome. There is no drop of German blood in him."

Among more current Roman Catholic scholars, such comments like these are no longer made. This approach is usually no longer given any seriousness among Catholic scholars. Neither should you.

Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner.htm#Reformation


#9

[quote=Paris Blues]I hate to say it that way but it kinda makes me wonder because our other brethren don’t have the fullness of TRUTH and they need to know it!

It’s like as if Satan got Martin Luther to think the way he did and thought it would be funny to lead people away from the Truth, therefore, people “twist” things around, etc.?? Did the devil cause Luther to branch apart from the CC?!?!

Just a thought.
[/quote]

That question invites the question, “Was the devil involved in the development of the Papacy ?”

Why not ? There is a startling contrast between the crucified Peter, bearing witness to Christ by his death for His Name; and the Renaissance Papacy of Alexander VI. Alexander VI bought the Papacy - showing himself a successor, not of Peter, but of Simon Magus, the first man after Pentecost to attempt to traffic in spiritual things. Simon Magus tried to pay cash for the power of the Holy Spirit. Who rebuked him ? Who else but Peter ?

If that is not devil’s work - what is ?


#10

[quote=Gottle of Geer]That question invites the question, “Was the devil involved in the development of the Papacy ?”

Why not ? There is a startling contrast between the crucified Peter, bearing witness to Christ by his death for His Name; and the Renaissance Papacy of Alexander VI. Alexander VI bought the Papacy - showing himself a successor, not of Peter, but of Simon Magus, the first man after Pentecost to attempt to traffic in spiritual things. Simon Magus tried to pay cash for the power of the Holy Spirit. Who rebuked him ? Who else but Peter ?

If that is not devil’s work - what is ?
[/quote]

But the papacy was in existence since at least the 3rd century.


#11

[quote=Gottle of Geer]That question invites the question, “Was the devil involved in the development of the Papacy ?”

Why not ? There is a startling contrast between the crucified Peter, bearing witness to Christ by his death for His Name; and the Renaissance Papacy of Alexander VI. Alexander VI bought the Papacy - showing himself a successor, not of Peter, but of Simon Magus, the first man after Pentecost to attempt to traffic in spiritual things. Simon Magus tried to pay cash for the power of the Holy Spirit. Who rebuked him ? Who else but Peter ?

If that is not devil’s work - what is ?
[/quote]

They were protestant :stuck_out_tongue:

But it is fairly certain that when Christ said the road is narrow and the road hard, protestants selling people on “once saved always saved” and “faith alone” easy believism, they are following S. Magus. Only one person would be so successful at selling people that the road to heaven is wide and way is easy.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene


#12

[quote=Nicene]They were protestant :stuck_out_tongue:

But it is fairly certain that when Christ said the road is narrow and the road hard, protestants selling people on “once saved always saved” and “faith alone” easy believism, they are following S. Magus. Only one person would be so successful at selling people that the road to heaven is wide and way is easy.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
[/quote]

Hello Nicene,

Luther never taught “easy believism”.

Luther taught a life under the cross, which is a life of discipleship of following after Christ. Our crosses though, do not save. They serve the neighbor. We are called to be neighbor to those around us. Luther says,

“We receive Christ not only as a gift by faith, but also as an example of love toward our neighbor, whom we are to serve as Christ serves us. Faith brings and gives Christ to you with all his possessions. Love gives you to your neighbor with all your possessions. These two things constitute a true and complete Christian life; then follow suffering and persecution for such faith and love, and out of these grows hope and patience.”

Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner.htm#Reformation


#13

[quote=TertiumQuid]Hello Nicene,

Luther never taught “easy believism”.

Luther taught a life under the cross, which is a life of discipleship of following after Christ. Our crosses though, do not save. They serve the neighbor. We are called to be neighbor to those around us. Luther says,

“We receive Christ not only as a gift by faith, but also as an example of love toward our neighbor, whom we are to serve as Christ serves us. Faith brings and gives Christ to you with all his possessions. Love gives you to your neighbor with all your possessions. These two things constitute a true and complete Christian life; then follow suffering and persecution for such faith and love, and out of these grows hope and patience.”

Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner.htm#Reformation
[/quote]

Martin sure Lived his word:

I had made up my mind to write no more either about the Jews or against them. But since I learned that these miserable and accursed people do not cease to lure to themselves even us, that is, the Christians, I have published this little book, so that I might be found among those who opposed such poisonous activities of the Jews who warned the Christians to be on their guard against them. I would not have believed that a Christian could be duped by the Jews into taking their exile and wretchedness upon himself. However, the devil is the god of the world, and wherever God’s word is absent he has an easy task, not only with the weak but also with the strong. May God help us. Amen.

He did not call them Abraham’s children, but a “brood of vipers” [Matt. 3:7]. Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel, and they declared, "He has a demon’ [Matt 11:18]. Our Lord also calls them a “brood of vipers”; furthermore in John 8 :39,44] he states: "If you were Abraham’s children ye would do what Abraham did… You are of your father the devil. It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham’s but the devil’s children, nor can they bear to hear this today.

Therefore the blind Jews are truly stupid fools…

Now just behold these miserable, blind, and senseless people.

…their blindness and arrogance are as solid as an iron mountain.

Learn from this, dear Christian, what you are doing if you permit the blind Jews to mislead you. Then the saying will truly apply, “When a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into the pit” [cf. Luke 6:39]. You cannot learn anything from them except how to misunderstand the divine commandments…

Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self*glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.

Moreover, they are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as arch*thieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security.

However, they have not acquired a perfect mastery of the art of lying; they lie so clumsily and ineptly that anyone who is just a little observant can easily detect it. But for us Christians they stand as a terrifying example of God’s wrath.

If I had to refute all the other articles of the Jewish faith, I should be obliged to write against them as much and for as long a time as they have used for inventing their lies** that is, longer than two thousand years.

…Christ and his word can hardly be recognized because of the great vermin of human ordinances. However, let this suffice for the time being on their lies against doctrine or faith.

Did I not tell you earlier that a Jew is such a noble, precious jewel that God and all the angels dance when he farts?

Alas, it cannot be anything but the terrible wrath of God which permits anyone to sink into such abysmal, devilish, hellish, insane baseness, envy, and arrogance. If I were to avenge myself on the devil himself I should be unable to wish him such evil and misfortune as God’s wrath inflicts on the Jews, compelling them to lie and to blaspheme so monstrously, in violation of their own conscience. Anyway, they have their reward for constantly giving God the lie.

No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.

…but then eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God’s anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!

more…


#14

Over and above that we let them get rich on our sweat and blood, while we remain poor and they such the marrow from our bones.

I brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule** if my counsel does not please your, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews, lest we become guilty sharers before God in the lies, blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, this dear mother, all Christians, all authority, and ourselves. Do not grant them protection, safe*conduct, or communion with us… .With this faithful counsel and warning I wish to cleanse and exonerate my conscience.

Let the government deal with them in this respect, as I have suggested. But whether the government acts or not, let everyone at least be guided by his own conscience and form for himself a definition or image of a Jew.

However, we must avoid confirming them in their wanton lying, slandering, cursing, and defaming. Nor dare we make ourselves partners in their devilish ranting and raving by shielding and protecting them, by giving them food, drink, and shelter, or by other neighborly

Therefore we Christians, in turn, are obliged not to tolerate their wanton and conscious blasphemy.

Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death.

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly * and I myself was unaware of it * will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. (remainder omitted)

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17 :10 ff.]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: “what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord.” Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people’s obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 {:18], “You are Peter,” etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.

more…


#15

Fifth, I advise that safe*conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home. (…remainder omitted).

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God’s blessing in a good and worthy cause.

Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3:19]}. For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.

But what will happen even if we do burn down the Jews’ synagogues and forbid them publicly to praise God, to pray, to teach, to utter God’s name? They will still keep doing it in secret. If we know that they are doing this in secret, it is the same as if they were doing it publicly. for our knowledge of their secret doings and our toleration of them implies that they are not secret after all and thus our conscience is encumbered with it before God.

Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is: “First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire. That would demonstrate to God our serious resolve and be evidence to all the world that it was in ignorance that we tolerated such houses, in which the Jews have reviled God, our dear Creator and Father, and his Son most shamefully up till now but that we have now given them their due reward.”

“I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. They surely do not know what they are doing; moreover, as people possessed, they do not wish to know it, hear it, or learn it. There it would be wrong to be merciful and confirm them in their conduct. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God’s wrath and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his. I am exonerated.”

Wanna see what he said about the epistle of James?

How about the other books he tried to remove, a model of Christianity that one.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene


#16

[quote=TertiumQuid]This approach is usually no longer given any seriousness among Catholic scholars. Neither should you.

[/quote]

Why?


#17

[quote=TertiumQuid]Hello Nicene,

Luther never taught “easy believism”.

Luther taught a life under the cross, which is a life of discipleship of following after Christ. Our crosses though, do not save. They serve the neighbor. We are called to be neighbor to those around us. Luther says,

“We receive Christ not only as a gift by faith, but also as an example of love toward our neighbor, whom we are to serve as Christ serves us. Faith brings and gives Christ to you with all his possessions. Love gives you to your neighbor with all your possessions. These two things constitute a true and complete Christian life; then follow suffering and persecution for such faith and love, and out of these grows hope and patience.”

Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner.htm#Reformation
[/quote]

Contarini has been doing a very good job of vindicating Luther’s character as a Christian too


#18

[quote=Gottle of Geer]## Contarini has been doing a very good job of vindicating Luther’s character as a Christian too
[/quote]

Ahh but we aren’t talking scholarship now are we. His post previous to mine had nothing to do with scholarship, but with the character of a person. Martins character certainly fits the profile of his post.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene


#19

[quote=Scotty PGH]Why?
[/quote]

Hi Scotty,

Because the emphasis on the Catholic understanding of Luther shifted from ad hominem villifying attacks against Luther “the person” to attempts to understand Luther’s theology. For a detailed explanation see:

ntrmin.org/The%20Roman%20Catholic%20Understanding%20of%20Martin%20Luther%201.htm

and

ntrmin.org/Catholic%20Understanding%20of%20Luther%202.htm

The earlier ad hominem attack approach relied on flawed interpretations of Luther. All explained in the links above.

Regards,

James Swan


#20

[quote=TertiumQuid]Hi Scotty,

Because the emphasis on the Catholic understanding of Luther shifted from ad hominem villifying attacks against Luther “the person” to attempts to understand Luther’s theology. For a detailed explanation see:

ntrmin.org/The%20Roman%20Catholic%20Understanding%20of%20Martin%20Luther%201.htm

and

ntrmin.org/Catholic%20Understanding%20of%20Luther%202.htm

The earlier ad hominem attack approach relied on flawed interpretations of Luther. All explained in the links above.

Regards,

James Swan
[/quote]

You mean like the ad hominem attacks posted previuos to those?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene


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