Beginnings in Protestantism

“Jesus the True Vine -I am the true vine: and my Father is the husbandman”. Every branch in me that bear not fruit, he will take away: and every one that bear fruit, he will purge it, that it may bring forth more fruit. (Jn15:1-2) CityofGod.blog reveals the Luther schism, full details of his lies and disobedience and other despicable actions of Martin Luther Father of Errors. This document was published by the Church 4/10/1846. It thoroughly examines Luther’s behaviors and doctrines that were deemed Heretical from the start. 500 years later his fruit, Christ is destroying these “spirits of Disobedience” with internal disruptions of mass proportions. My thoughts, why haven’t I heard this all before? This Apologetic is a defense of the Catholic Faith, and does not outline the Liturgical ABUSES Luther profaned while celebrating Mass for the faithful before he was ex-communicated. This shocking truth, focuses on Luther dishonors his word time and time again.

Now in English, a Polish Documentary called “LUTER” https://vimeo.com/297897122

Did you know, Luther after shooting a man “dead”, ran to the Augustinian monk monastery for “sanctuary”, thus pretending, he wanted to be a monk. Never believing in he power of the Church in “binding and loosening”, how would he be forgiven? His answer start a new religion.

SPIRITUAL WORKS OF MERCY

DOCTRINAL CATECHISM: MODERN HERETICS

RISE AND PROGRESS OF PROTESTANTISM. Chap. i. Nature and author of Protestantism,
Chap. ii. Causes of Luther’s new Creed,
Chap. iii. Luther required to retract by Cardinal Cajetan,
Chap. iv. Luther judged by the Universities of Paris, &c,
Chap. v. Luther cited by the secular power,
Chap. vi. Luther’s mode of supplying his Church with priests. p. 26.

DRAWN FROM THE WORKS OF LUTHER HIMSELF.


CHAPTER I. Nature & Author

    Question. What is Protestantism?
    Answer. A new religion, invented and propagated by a man, named Martin Luther.
    Q. In what year was Luther born?
    A. In 1483.
    Q. Where was he born?
    A. In Eisleben, of Prussian Saxony.
    Q. Of what Religion were his parents?
    A. They were Catholics, as were all his ancestors.
    Q. At the time Luther was born, what was the religion of all Europe?
    A. All believed what the Catholics believe at the present time.
    Q. Was Luther himself a Catholic for any time?

    A. He was a Catholic until his thirty-fifth year.
    Q. What was his state of life?
   
A. He was a monk of the order of discalced Augustinians.
    Q. As such had he made religious vows?
   
A. At the age of twenty-three years, he made vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.
    Q. Was he bound to keep these vows?
   
A. Without doubt, since he made them after mature reflection, and of his own free will; because the Prophet says, (Ps.49) “Pay thy vows to the Most High;” and God himself says, (Num. ch. 30:) “If any man make a vow to the Lord, or bind himself by an oath, he shall not make his word void, but shall fulfil all that he promised.”
    Q. Did Luther obey this command of God by keeping his vows?
   
A. No; he violated all the three; he apostatized,—he married Catherine de Boré, a nun, like himself under vows, and he utterly disobeyed every ecclesiastical authority.
    Q. Was this man in reality the founder of the Protestant religion, and the first of that sect that ever appeared in the world?
   
A. Most certainly; for no minister, no congregation, no body of Divines professing Protestant doctrines, was ever heard of until his time.

    Q. What inference do you draw from all this?
   
A. That Protestantism cannot be the religion of Christ; because, if the Church of Christ required reformation, a God of purity and holiness would never have chosen such an immoral character—an apostate, a wholesale vow-breaker, a sacrilegious seducer—for that purpose.

CHAPTER II. NOT of God

    Q. What induced Luther to attack the ancient Catholic faith and invent a new creed?
    A. Pride and jealousy. Pride Leo having granted an Indulgence, Luther’s pride was mortified, because the commission to preach that Indulgence was given to the order of St. Dominic, and not to his own.
    Q. To what did he allow himself to be driven by this pride and jealousy?
   
A. To attack the doctrine of Indulgences itself.
    Q. Would the Catholic Church have blamed Luther had he merely attacked the abuses or avarice of individual Catholics?
   
A. No, certainly. He erred in this, that under pretense of reprehending abuses, he assailed the true faith on the subject of Indulgences.

    Q. What was his next step?
    A. He posted on the gates of the Church of Wittemburg, ninety-five articles, which he wrote and which contained many things not in accordance with the doctrines of the Church.
    Q. Were these articles refuted?
   
A. They were, and with much ability, by some Catholic Theologians, to whom Luther replied with a haughty insolence unworthy of a Christian.
    Q. What hypocritical pretences did Luther make in 1517, during these disputes?
   
A. He pretended that he wished to teach nothing but what was conformable to Scripture, to the Holy Fathers, and approved by the Holy See. (T.1. Ger. Edit. Gen. p. 12.)
    Q. What did he write to Jerome, Bishop of Brandenburg?
   
A. That he wished to decide nothing himself, and that he wished to submit all his doctrines to the Church. (Ibid, p. 54.)
    Q. What did he write to Pope Leo in 1518?
    A. That he would listen to that Pope’s decision as to an oracle proceeding from the mouth of Jesus Christ. (Ibid, p. 58)
    Q. What did he promise to his religious superiors?
   
A. That he would be silent, if his adversaries were placed under the same restraint.

    Q. What inference do you draw from all this?
   
A. That he was either a hypocrite who did not intend to fulfill his promises, or that he was quite satisfied of the truth of the doctrines which he impugned, since otherwise he could not conscientiously promise silence and obedience.
    Q. What other consequences do you draw?
   
A. That a man swollen with pride, envy, jealousy—a disobedient hypocrite—was not the person to be chosen by God to reform abuses if any such existed.

CHAPTER III. Luther Required to Retract – refused

    Q. What took place at Augsburg between Luther and Cardinal Cajetan?
   
A. The Cardinal required of him, that he should retract his errors, which Luther refused, appealing at the same time to the most celebrated Universities of Germany, and to that of Paris, and pledging himself most humbly to submit to their decision. (Ibid, p. 119 and p. 14.)
    Q. Did he stand by that appeal?
   
A. No; he appealed a short time after to the Pope. (Ibid, p. 122)
    Q. Did he abide by this second appeal?
   
A. No; he next appealed “from the Pope ill-informed,” “to the Pope well-informed” (Ibid, p. 205)


    Q. Did he stop even here?
   
A. No; he then appealed to a General Council. (Ibid, p. 351)
    Q. Did he abide by this resolution to submit to the decision of a General Council?
   
A. No; at the Diet of Worms, he declared flatly that the would not submit his doctrine to any Council. (Ibid, pp. 448, 450, 452)
    Q. What do you conclude from such conduct?
   
A. In the first place, that Luther must have been extremely fickle to appeal to so many Judges, and to abide by the decision of none. Secondly, that he knew his cause was bad and his doctrine false, since he would not submit it even to the best judges. Thirdly, that he must have been brimful of sinful pride and obstinacy, since he preferred his own single judgment to that of the whole Christian world.
    Q. But did not Luther promise to abandon his errors, if any one would prove them such from Scripture?
   
A. Yes; but this was only an artifice to enable him more freely to propagate them; because he well knew that the Scriptures may be wrested into any, or every meaning; that one could give them any sense he pleased, as the Mormons, the Millerites, and other strange sects do at the present day:—the Scripture is made to teach all sorts of contradictions.


    Q. What was his real object in this subterfuge?
   
A. He wished to impose his monstrous errors on the public, as truths bearing the sacred stamp of Scriptural authority. Had he been sincere in his appeal, he would have said:— I shall leave it to the Church to decide whether my doctrine is conformable to the Scripture or not.

CHAPTER IV. Luther Judged by Universities

    Q. What judgment did the Universities, to which Luther appealed, pronounce upon his doctrine?
   
A. They condemned his doctrine as false and heretical. (Ibid, p. 539.)
    Q. What Universities did so?
   
A. The Universities of Leipsic, Cologne, Louvain, and Paris. (all 3)
    Q. Did Luther abide by their decision as he had promised?
   
A. No; on the contrary, he poured forth a torrent of invectives and insults against them; he called the University of Paris “the mother of errors,” “the daughter of Antichrist,” “the gate of hell” (Ibid, p. 548.)

    Q. What was the judgment of the Pope to whom Luther appealed, and whose decisions he promised to receive, as if they came from the mouth of Christ himself?
   
A. The Pope published a Bull, condemning forty-one articles of Luther’s doctrine.
    Q. What does the Pope say in that Bull?
    A. That he had done every thing he could to reclaim Luther, but that all his paternal cares and advices had been unavailing. He give Luther sixty days to retract, and orders his works to be formally burned at the end of that period, should he persist in his errors.
    Q. Did Luther submit?
   
A. No; he now renounces the authority to which he had appealed; he writes against the Bull of his chief Superior, whom he had vowed to obey; he denounces the Papal decision as the decision of Antichrist, (Ibid, p. 345;) he publicly burns the Bull, along with the book of Decretals. (Ibid, p. 353.)
    Q. Had Luther previously written, in the most submissive terms, declaring that he was willing to cast himself at the feet of his Holiness?
   
A. Yes, (Ibid, p. 58;) but the moment the Pope opposed him, he changed his language, declaring that not only the Bull, but the Pope himself should be burned. (Ibid, p. 553.)

    Q. Had Luther not written, a little before, that his preservation or destruction depended entirely on the absolution or condemnation of his holiness? (Ibid, p. 53.)
    A. Yes; but he now declares that men must take up arms against the Pope, the Cardinals and Bishops, and wash their hands in the blood of these dignitaries. (Ibid. p. 60.)
    Q. Had he not written, before this time, that the Pope and the Catholic Church were the highest spiritual authority on earth? (Ibid, p. 144.)
    A. Yes; but he now teaches, that none but those who oppose the Papal authority can be saved. (Ibid, p. 553.)
    Q. What do you now think of Luther’s conduct?
   
A. I can discover nothing in it but the spirit of inconsistency, doubt, error, and revenge, without even the slightest mark of the spirit of God.

CHAPTER V. Cites Secular Power

    Q. What did the secular power do to suppress the rising heresy?
   
A. The Emperor Charles V. cited Luther to appear before the Diet of Worms, and sought to reclaim him by the mildest means.

    Q. What reply did Luther make to the order of the Emperor?
   
A. He replied, that from the wording of the order, one would suppose the Emperor to be either a maniac or a demoniac. (Ibid, p. 460.)
    Q. Why was not Luther confined, to prevent him from corrupting others, and from exciting disturbance?
   
A. He had received the assurance of a safe-conduct, and the civil authorities could not break their promise. When, however, the term of the safe-conduct had expired, the Emperor proscribed Luther as a sectarian, cut off from the body of the Church.
    Q. Whither did Luther then retire?
   
A. To the castle of Wittemburg, where he wrote the most false and pernicious works.
    Q. What was the effect of these works, in which he spoke of nothing but “evangelical liberty?”
    A. These works produced disturbances, sedition, and amongst other evils, the German War of the Peasants, who committed every sort of excess, declaring that the rich had no exclusive right to their property, that every thing should be held in common, because in the 2nd chapter of the Acts, it is said, that all property was common amongst the first Christians.

    Q. Did other divisions and schisms soon appear amongst the Lutherans?
   
A. Yes; each disciple of Luther thought he had as good a right as his master to expound the Scripture according to his own peculiar whim;—Carlostad, Zwinglius, Calvin, Muncer, Schwenckfeld, were of this opinion. They interpreted for themselves, denounced their master, and set up religions of their own.
    Q. Did the thing called “religion,” invented by Luther, continue thus to give rise to new and different sects?
   
A. Yes; every year gave rise to a new spawn of sectarians,—a short period produced thirty-four different sects; and even to this day, the religion of Luther is as prolific of sects and sectarians, as the putrid carcass is of insects or vermin. So true is it, that when we once abandon truth, there can be no end to our wanderings in the mazes of error; that when we once break the moorings which bind us to the rock of truth, by the adoption of false principle, such as that of private interpretation, we are only the prey of endless, ever-varying, erroneous human opinions,—tossed to and fro on a wide ocean of contradictions and contrarieties,—to-day on one track, to-morrow upon another,—certain of nothing, but ultimate shipwreck on the rock of infidelity, or the quicksands of heresy and schism.


    Q. What lesson do you learn from this portion of Luther’s conduct?
   
A. That the man who wantonly disobeys all authority, both ecclesiastical and civil—the man who perverts the sacred Scripture, for the purpose of exciting sedition and anarchy, and propagating evident heresy and schism—cannot possibly be the ambassador of heaven.

CHAPTER VI. How Luther acquired preachers

    Q. What means did Luther resort to for the purpose of supplying his new church with priests, seeing that no bishop could, or would ordain any of his followers?
   
A. He invented a new doctrine on that subject, a doctrine never known in the Church till his time.
    Q. What was that doctrine?
   
A. That all Christians—men, women, and children, even infants—were truly and really priests, and that nothing was wanting to them but presentation to a cure. (Ibid, pp. 64, 336, 369.)
    Q. Upon what did he found this unheard of doctrine?
   
A. Upon that passage of St. Peter, “You are [pg. 27] a royal priesthood.” “St. Peter,” he reasoned, “addresses this to all Christians, therefore all Christians are priests.” He might equally well have proved, from the same passage, that all Christians are kings; since St. Peter declares that they are all ROYAL. Hence, as all Christians are confessedly not kings, so neither are they all priests. Hence, again, all the followers of Luther should be satisfied, that their pretended pastors are only wolves in sheep’s clothing, who entered the fold not by the door but over the wall, since their pretended orders and mission are founded only upon a passage of Scripture evidently perverted to suit a purpose.
    Q. What was Luther’s next step after abolishing the true priesthood amongst his followers?
   
A. He next abolished the true Sacrifice.
    Q. What did he allege against the sacrifice of the Mass?
   
A. Various things which he learned from the devil, as he himself declares.
    Q. How does he express himself on that subject in his book on the Mass? (Tom. vi, p. 82.)
    A. “Having awoke,” he says, “about midnight, the devil commenced a dispute with me on the subject of the Mass.
    Q. What did the devil say to him? [pg. 28]

    A. “Listen, most sapient Doctor,” said the father of lies: “during fifteen years you have said Mass almost every day. What if all these acts have been only so many acts of idolatry?”
    Q. Did Luther hearken to the paternal advice of his sable director?
   
A. He listened so well, that he allowed himself to be persuaded that the devil was right and he was wrong, so that the enemy of man came off victor; and though Luther in the same book calls the devil the most artful and lying deceiver, he here chose to follow his advice rather than that of the Church.
    Q. What think you of all this?
   
A. One can hardly tell at which to be most astonished,—at the open and brazen avowal of Luther, or the awful blindness of those who follow a master, who, by his own account, received his training and instruction in the school of Satan.


NEXT in SERIES – THE PROTESTANT PRETENDED REFORMATION
IS NOT THE WORK OF GOD #2


Doc/CityofGod/Apologetics/ CatechismDoctrinal/ P1-P15 p385

A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM;

WHEREIN DIVERS POINTS OF:

CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE ASSAILED BY
MODERN HERETICS ARE SUSTAINED BY AN APPEAL TO THE

HOLY SCRIPTURES, THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT
FATHERS, AND THE DICTATES OF REASON

BY THE R E V. S T E P H E N K E E N A N.

THIRD AMERICAN EDITION, REVISED AND CORRECTED, CONFORM
ABLY TO THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL OF THE VATICAN.

“Try all things, and hold fast that which is good.”—THESS. V. 21


IMPRIMATUR: + JOHN CARDINAL McCLOSKEY ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK

P. J. KENEDY AND SONS
PUBLISHERS TO THE HOLY APOSTOLIC SEE

3 AND 5 BARCLAY STREET NEW YORK


APPROBATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL EDINBURGH EDITION.

ORIGINAL EDINBURGH EDITION.


A Concise Summary of Arguments, Authorities, and Proofs, in support of the Doctrines, Institutions, and Practices of the Catholic Church, is here presented in a very convenient form, as an additional antidote against the unceasing effusions of antagonist Ignorance and Misrepresentation. The Believer will be hereby instructed and confirmed in his Faith, and the sincere Searcher after Truth will here find a lucid path opened to conduct him to its sanctuary. There is much important matter condensed in these unpretending pages. The work, I trust, will meet with the notice it deserves, and the good be thus effected which the zealous and talented author has had in view in its publication. + ANDREW, BISHOP OF CERAMIS, Vicar Apostolic of Eastern Scotland.

JESUS, THE TRUTH Icon

REFUTING PROTESTANTISM WITH DOCTRINAL CATECHISM 1846 continues next with... Progress of Protestantism #2

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.