The question is how did it taste?
Speaking of which, I saw this on a piece of toast and don't know what to make of it:
Posted on 03/17/2015 5:15:11 AM PDT by Gamecock
The sixteenth-century papacy never succeeded in setting fire to Martin Luther, much to its chagrin. Support from a string of Saxon princes and political events in the Holy Roman Empire combined to keep Luther from Rome's grasp until he succumbed, aged 62, to a natural death. Intriguingly, there was much speculation in Luther's day and for several centuries afterwards about what would have happened if Rome had succeeded in sending the reformer to the stake -- speculation, that is, about whether he would have actually burned or not. From rather early in Luther's reforming career the opinion circulated that Luther was in fact insusceptible to burning -- that he was, in other words, incombustible per se.
Arguments for Luther's innate fireproof status were summarized in an early eighteenth-century Latin work titled Lutherus non combustus by Justus Schoeppfer, pastor of St. Anna's Kirche in Eisleben, Germany. Schoeppfer's work was taken seriously enough, even in the midst of the European Enlightenment, to merit a second, German edition of the work - Unverbrannter Luther - some years later.
The difficulty, of course, in establishing whether Luther was combustible or not is that, as noted, no one ever succeeded, to our knowledge, in lighting a match to him. Nor are we privy to any reports about Luther stumbling into the stove or otherwise coming into contact with heat sufficient to prove or disprove his fireproof status. The arguments for Luther's incombustibility seem to consist principally of various historical accounts about objects or persons closely related to Luther which themselves proved impervious to fire -- objects or persons who participated, as it were, in Luther's own proper incombustibility.
So, for instance, a 1521 pamphlet describing Luther's trial at Worms notes that, while Luther was permitted to leave Worms unharmed, the Diet decided to burn his books and a picture of his person to reinforce charges of heresy against him. The books apparently burned just fine, but the picture of Luther refused to succumb to the flames, at least until it was removed, enclosed in a box made of pitch, and reinserted into the fire. In 1522, on the occasion of a burning of Luther's books in Thorn, Prussia, another picture of Luther similarly defied its natural fate. In 1634, nearly a century after Luther's death, an image of Luther inexplicably survived the destruction by fire of a Lutheran pastor's study in Artern, Germany. And in 1689 when fire broke out in Luther's birth-house in Eisleben, the only surviving picture from the areas affected by flame was one of the reformer.
Luther seems to have imparted his gift of incombustibility to places he previously occupied in addition to portraits of himself. When fires destroyed the Augustinian monastery in Magdeburg in 1631, the cell and bunk an adolescent Luther had occupied during a one-year stint as a student there were remarkably preserved. Even more remarkably, the house in which Luther was born -- although it finally succumbed, as noted, to flames in 1689 -- was preserved from fires which ravaged the surrounding houses and town of Eisleben in 1569, 1601, and 1671.
Even more extraordinary than such miraculous preservation of pictures and places associated with Luther was that of one particular person associated with him. In 1527 a disciple of Luther named Leonhard Keyser was sentenced to death for heresy in Schärding in Bavaria. According to a published pamphlet which detailed his execution, the ropes binding Keyser to the stake burned when his pyre was lit but the man himself remained unharmed. Displeased with this turn of events, Keyser's executioners pulled him from the flames and dismembered him, and then returned him in pieces to the fire. Even then, his body wouldn't burn. Authorities were ultimately forced to wait for the flames to subside so they could take Keyser's unsinged body parts and throw them into the local river.
Needless to say, Rome was keen to discredit stories about the incombustibility of Luther's person, pictures, or disciples as soon as such began circulating in early modern Europe. Thus she pointed out that Luther had been successfully burned in effigy in the ecclesiastical capital city itself in 1519. To put the matter to rest (among other points made), Luther-puppets were tried, condemned to death for heresy, and successfully burned in Altenburg, Vienna, and Munich in 1522, 1567, and 1597 respectively.
Protestant claims of Luther's incombustibility persisted despite these counter-measures.
The late R.W. Scribner, whose research into early modern perceptions and accounts of Luther's incombustibility is summarized in what I've written thus far, suggested in his work on this subject at least two ways of accounting for historical belief in Luther's fireproof status. One could categorize such belief as a continuation of medieval superstition which credited other religious items -- most notably, the consecrated bread of the Mass -- as insusceptible to fire. So strong, in fact, was the conviction that the Eucharistic host could not burn that persons were known to cast the consecrated bread (Christ's body, in medieval understanding) into buildings where fires had broken out in order to quell the flames and preserve said buildings, thus treating the sacred element as the medieval equivalent of a fire extinguisher.
One could, alternatively, ascribe belief in Luther's incombustibility to Jan Hus's legendary prophecy on the occasion of his own burning at the Council of Constance (1415) that, whatever the institutional church's success in cooking his goose, a swan would arise whom they would prove unable to burn. The problem here, however, is that Hus never actually made such a prophecy. Hus did express, shortly before his martyrdom, his expectation that stronger "birds" than he (Hus meaning "goose" in Czech) would arise to carry on his reforming work. Luther himself, in 1531, transformed Hus's comment into a prophecy which found its fulfillment in him. But it wasn't until several years after Luther's death that Hus's "prophecy" assumed the form it possesses in church historical folklore today (complete with the description of a potentially incombustible swan). Indeed, the evolution of the legend concerning Hus's prophecy would seem to be the result, rather than the cause, of convictions about Luther's incombustibility, which (as noted) were taking shape as early as 1521.
A third possibility never considered by Scribner -- nor, for that matter, by most scholars -- is that early modern folk believed Luther and certain Lutheran objects/disciples, by way of participation, were fireproof because they were, in fact, fireproof. Personally, I'm inclined towards this opinion. Stranger things have happened (Exodus 14.21-25; John 2.7-10; John 6.16-21; Matthew 14.13-21; Luke 24.1-8; Acts 1.9-11).
I have no idea. But I’ve heard a lot about Mary “saving” people and never really understood it. So I thought maybe the poster could give sme insight to that. Or maybe he/she is condeming Luther to hell because he/she thinks he belongs there and hasn’t asked Mary because of that.
He was a human being. He would have burned.
Much to the sixteenth-century papacy delight.
I have never been told Catholics were evil, or anyone else for that matter, in church or at home; apparently you have been so taught, or have become bitter due to mistreatment by others. I have not mistreated you nor will I hate you.
But maybe you can learn something from me; if you truly believe your interpretation of things is the way... and you want, like any Christian, to go forth and make disciples of all nations... to tell the word of God’s mercy for the sinner and condemned... that you might want to consider an approach that won’t turn people off.
A sense of humor might help.
In fact in our services we refer to the One Holy and Apostolic Catholic church fairly frequently, so the term “catholic” has never been considered a bad thing.
You will find that I don’t participate in the Christian-bashing going on this site, by both “protestants” and “Roman Catholics,” because I suspect most of those doing it are trolls sent by the “community organizer” to set us at each other’s throats for his purposes, to divide and conquer. Some fall into the trap and follow their lead.
I will not.
Okay.
But I’ll bet the 16th century papacy has no opinion on the issue today.
This sounds like an awful lot like a Catholic tradition which Protestants are so quick to disparage.
Of course he would have. The Roman Catholic Church of the day proved that over and over again.
"Be of good comfort, and play the man, Master Ridley; we shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out." Latimer to Ridley at their burning.
“If both Catholics and Lutherans have a similar view towards justification, then Luther is as much justified towards God through Christ as any Catholic.”
You’re assuming Luther had the same view as modern Lutherans like the Lutheran World Federation. That is doubtful. Thus, there is no immediate reason to believe - based upon an agreement about justification between the Church and a Lutheran sect in the late 1990s - that Luther is “as much justified towards God through Christ as any Catholic.” Luther was once justified, but then he embraced heresy and sin. Unless he repented of those heresies and sins, there is clearly a problem.
A smokescreen between Lib Lutherans and the Catholics. Rejected by confessional Lutherans.
Agreed, I wonder when the Lutherans will build an idol of Luther and pray to it.
I thank you for your frank and honest reply. I usually don’t descend to what others may term “baiting”. I had no intention of it today. But my indignation got the best of me. We disagree on some things obviously. But I would be happy to claim you as a sibling in the family of God.
In Christo, Pax.
CC
Pax, my friend. May the Lord bless you and keep you this St. Patrick’s day.
Highly unlikely as he was just a sinful man.
With a stinging sense of humor that got him into the weeds sometimes.
Not to mention he wouldn’t approve because he was very much aware he was a sinner, and in fact didn’t like the term “Lutheran”- that was a term applied by the RC as a put-down.
I’m wondering how well Christians are going to do against Islam when internet trolls have us waging war against eachother like a bunch of zealots angry over whether or not the law allows us to lift a cow out of a well on the Sabbath.
I don’t know, Gamecock. Luther appeared on a grilled cheese sandwich I was making. But I wanted it a bit more well done. Well, instead, the stovetop burst into flames. The sandwich was spared, however. It was kind of medium-well. Does that count?
The question is how did it taste?
Speaking of which, I saw this on a piece of toast and don't know what to make of it:
Martin Luther throws a large portion of the Old Testament into the garbage can then asserts that "kingdom" means total individualistic anarchy but deluded people insist Luther was following the Holy Spirit (the same Holy Spirit Luther asserts was too inept and imperfect to protect Scripture from the inclusion of error) and based his heresy of total anarchy on Scripture.
Now, that's a strong delusion.
***so He leaves a kingdom to the Apostles.***
That is the Roman Catholic delusion right there.
Luke 22:29 "And I dispose to you, as my Father hath disposed to me, a kingdom ;"
Luke 22:30 "That you may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom : and may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
So now we have it stated by a single Self and Self Alone authority in all matters of faith and morals not to mention interpretation of Scripture, that Jesus Christ was not given a kingdom by His Father and the Apostles were not granted a kingdom to take care of nor will they ever, ever, sit on thrones.
As we have seen with regard to other direct quotes of Jesus Christ in His Holy Word, anyone who believes in one of the heresies Luther spawned and doesn't like the implications and/or consequences of something Christ said simply pretends Christ never said it or even as the Incarnate Son of God, The Word Incarnate, Christ was still too tongue tied to make Himself clearly understood.
So is it that Scripture contains a lot of errors or that this passage was originally written in Sanskrit and therefore "kingdom" really means "soapbox derby"?
As I said about Luther's heresy of anarchy, "Now that's a strong delusion".
Catholics engaging in name-calling and put-downs? I've never heard of such a thing! /sarc>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.