The Devil, Luther and Protestantism

Pe. Julio Maria spirituality

They lied to us: Know who THE TRUE MARTINTO LUTERO was!

Fr. Julio Maria, SDN


THE DEVIL, LUTERO AND PROTESTANTISM


2nd Edition

1950

Publisher "The Fighter" Manhumirim - Minas


Montage of this file: alexandriacatolica.blogspot.com

Nihil Obstat
Santos, 24 July 1937
Fr Angelo Contessolo Ad hoc Censor
IMPRIMATUR
Coratingen, 10 July 1937
Mons. Aristides Rocha Vic. Capitularis
REIMPRIMATUR
Manhumirim, August 15, 1949
† João Cavati
Diocesan Bishop of Caratinga

CENSOR ASSESSMENT


Santos, June 24, 1937

Monsr.Aristides Rock
Vicar Chapter of Caratinga

Most Reverend Excellence,


I refer to you. Nihil Obstat, the publication of the new work of the tireless Fr. Julius Maria SDN, entitled: "The Devil, Luther and Protestantism." This work, especially in centers where salaried Protestants lay their bullshit, as in the Alterosas, can only do great good, although after reading such and such vileness we may feel an instinctive need to rub our eyes and wash the as the late Maria Desidéria used to say. It is quite possible even that this naked and crude story does not please certain souls who, after an endless series of infidelities, end up in the mire of addiction, and bring discomfort to the fearless author. In this case, please comfort him by pointing out that when Denifle, in the first decade of this century, running forever under the veil of four hundred years, showed to the terrified Protestant world the reality of his infamous founder in Catholicism itself there was no shortage of “little scandalized ones.” And Grisar's grandiose work, which was already ready at that time, had even to wait for some time for publication. These are eloquent testimonies given to the truth against the ignoble hypocrisy of apostates and protestants of bad faith who seek to conceal in the eyes of the people the monstrous series of immoralities, baseness, and mischief from the time of Henry VIII to the Duke of Windsor; With such spiritual leaders, it is only natural for the poor, good-faith Protestants to be ashamed.

From Your Excess Servant in Christ

Fr Angelo Contessoto, SJ

 


APPROVAL LETTER


From the Revo. Sr. Vicar Chapter of Caratinga

AtingCaratinga, July 10, 1937.

My dear Fr. Julio Maria Still under the impression of the enthusiasm that caused me in your last book: "Eucharistic Sun and Protestant Darkness", written and published at my request. Behold, a new booklet comes to my hands. What an extraordinary man you are! It seems that the books spring from his pen, as the drops of water pour from the stalactites in the vaults of the caves. I sent his work to the Censor appointed by our late D. José Maria Parreira Lara to receive his examination and his opinion. The nihil obstat of the illustrious Jesuit, which I send and ask you to publish, rather than an opinion, is a complete approval, a stimulus and a comfort. I see no need to console you. As the censor recommends, let us get you into trouble by publishing a book that will severely hurt the rebels against the Catholic Church, for I know how much your spirit looms above all attacks and slander that self-indulgence and the error sectarians may raise. His book "The Devil, Luther and Protestantism" faithfully and penetratingly retraces one of the Church's most agitated times. This era is known for its decay in history. But few know closely, and in detail, the titanic struggle that the Church sustained against Luther's and his fellow abuses and errors. Catholics and even Protestants themselves look at Luther only through short monographs, which show us his revolt against the Church, but do not place him in the environment in which he lived and acted. From this comes some incomplete notion and failure of the "reformer's" life and deeds. Show us, Rvma., In a complete picture and in bold colors, the decadence and evils of that time, the tendencies of the peoples of the time, the shambles in the prevailing ideas, the disunity of governments. And in such a framework, as you rightly emphasize, Rvma., Luther comes to our attention, not by personal qualities, but as the living and fiery incarnation of the disturbances of his time. In this same gloomy panel for the wickedness of the rebellious monk, one can see the calm, fruitful and regenerating action of the Catholic Church, refuting the error and restoring the truth. Congratulations, dear Fr. Julio Maria, for this ray, shining with light that is your book, which shines forth the historical truth, so distorted by Protestant historians, which illuminates the spirit of the sincere reader and the intelligence of the vacillating and , maybe the deluded ones. I ask our Lord to bless your ever terrible and brilliant punishment for the Wisdom from Above and the science of the earth.

I'm from you, Rvma. sincere and dedicated admirer

Monsr.Aristides Rock Vig.Capitulate

 

CHAPTER I THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE CHURCH
1. What liar?
2. Ridiculous assertion;
3. Holiness continues;
4. The protestant lie;
5. Protestant protests;
6. The work of Jesus Christ;
7. Conclusion.

CHAPTER II AN AUTHENTIC PORTRAIT
1. Luther's first years;
2. Luther's Vocation;
3. Incomplete Luther Studies;
4.Travel to Rome;
5. Luther's two great errors;
6. Conclusion.

CHAPTER III THE FALL OF LUTERO
1. Luther's state of mind and conversion;
2. Luther's scruples;
3. Conclusion.
CHAPTER IV ENTRY INTO SCENE
1. The issue of indulgences;
2. The declaration of war;
3. First reaction of the Church;
4. Luther and the Pope;
5. The Leipzig Discussion;
6. Luther's Furores;
7. Conclusion.

CHAPTER V THE CONDEMNATION OF LUTERO
1. The desperate;
2. New heretical doctrines;
3. The Bull of Condemnation;
4. Luther's insults;
5. The excommunication of Luther;
6. Before the Council of Worms;
7. Conclusion.

CHAPTER VI LUTERO IN WARTBURG
1. Luther's alleged mission;
2. Apparitions of the Devil;
3. impure temptations;
4. evangelical freedom;
5. Departure from Wartburg;
6. Hypocritical pretending;
7. Conclusion.

CHAPTER VII BLOOD AND MUD
1. The war of the rednecks;
2. Luther and the people;
3. Luther authority;
4. Adversaries of the Reformer;
5. Luther's feminism;
6. Kidnappers and kidnappings;
7. Catarina de Bora;
8. Luther's "marriage";
9. Luther's "marriage";
10. Conclusion.

Chapter VIII The Foundations of the Protestant Sects
1. The first projects;
2. Constitution of Protestantism;
3. Propaganda and Violence;
4. Adversaries of the reformer;
5. The monk and the fanatics;
8. Luther's false friends;
9. Conclusion.

CHAPTER IX LUTERO'S AID
1. The fiery Zwingli;
2. The iconoclast Carlostadt;
3. The infamous Calvin;
4. The bloodthirsty Henry VIII;
5. Other employees;
6. Conclusion.

CHAPTER X LATEST REFORMER FIGHTS
1. In the fortress of Coburg;
2. The hatred of the Papacy;
3. Felipe de Hesse's Bigamy;
4. Crazy or possessed.
5. Conclusion.

CHAPTER XI LAST DAYS AND DEATH OF LUTERO
1. The terrible man;
2. Displeasure and remorse;
3. Last trip;
4. The mysterious death;
5. Other opinions;
6. Luther's burial;
7. Conclusion.

CHAPTER XII AGAINST REFORM
1. The Council of Trent;
2. Sacred Scripture and tradition;
3. Original sin;
4. Justification;
5. The sacraments in general;
6. The Eucharist
7.Penitence and Extreme Anointing;
8. Order to Marriage;
9. Purgatory and indulgences;
10. The worship of the saints;
11. disciplinary decrees;
12. Conclusion.


CHAPTER XIII THE SAINTS AND HOLINESS
1. The Popes;
2. religious orders;
3. The saints of this age;
4. The sages of the age;
5. Conclusion.

CHAPTER XIV LUTERO'S SUCCESSORS
1. The Baptists;
2. The Presbyterians;
3. Methodists;
4. Quakers or tremors;
5. Protestant fragmentation;
6. Sects, sects, sects;
7. Eccentric sects;
8. Conclusion

CHAPTER XV PROTESTANISM
1. Judged by themselves;
2. the death sentence;
3. A dead still alive;
4. The simulacrum of religion;
5. The protestant mishmash;
6. Protestant morals;
7. Conclusion.

Chapter XVI An Overview
1. Big and big;
2. Luther;
3. The big mistake;
4. Individual interpretation;
5. Retractions of Luther;
6. Significant facts;
7. Judgment of an Anglican;
8. Conclusion

INTRODUCTION

"The Devil, Luther and Protestantism" is the strange title of a book telling us a macabre story. At first it seems exaggerated to approach these three realities. But it is not, as the reader will come to see. In the same way that Christ, the Pope and the Church are intertwined and completed in one entity, as I have shown in another volume on this title, they also bind and narrow in the devil, Luther and Protestantism. As I have proved the smooth, harmonious and divine union between Our Lord, the Pontiff of Rome and the institution of Peter, I will now try to establish the blatant and diabolical connection and the so-called sects of reformation. Do not accuse me of misrepresenting things before handling the entire book carefully. Those who read it will soon be convinced of the fact. Some slander assailed Protestantism. I merely took from oblivion and stressed, with numerous and sure arguments, the living expression of a historical and moral event. Luther's life lies in inexplicable oblivion. Why does a man who has revolutionized the world, consciences, ideas and even politics so much, remain so unknown that even his followers ignore his gestures? How to deal with the grave silence that surrounds the existence of this curious character? The answer is very simple. In spite of his outstanding role in the world, he is someone whose life, morals and personal aspirations have not stood out for their own value and predicates, but only because of the surrounding environment of degradation, sensuality and revolt, embodied in it such as to make him the representative of his sad time, the hero of the reigning evils of the time. It is evident that the one who elevated and sublimated Luther's personality was not his personal qualities, but the moral evils of his time. And this will be seen in these pages, where we will contemplate it according to the portrait given to us by impartial history and not as represented by free and suspicious legends. I will invent nothing here, for history, being the reproduction of lived and objective realities, is not suddenly forged. I will consult with ancient authorities, serious historians, Catholics, Protestants, and even Luther himself, relying on documents that will enable me to reproduce the historical and moral features of the Reformation and the reformers. Delicate readers will perhaps find this story somewhat harsh and violent. You're right. I just want to remind you that it is necessary, in the reproduction of rough scenes, to use terms corresponding to reality. War pictures are not painted in soft, pale tones, but in a persuasive and strong manner. Luther's favorite language can be described as rampant rage, appealing at every step to the demo, with which he ensured close relations. It was not appropriate to change this way of speaking, otherwise the author's face would change. Catholics and Protestants should read this book carefully. For the first it will be lightning and for the second it will be thunder. Lightning projects light, thunder trembles the bravest. Catholics of light need to guard against Protestant error; Protestants need thunder to wake up from the sleep of their failing teachings. Despite its popular form, this book is a true study, with solid, certain arguments, meant only to show the truth. Protestantism, by contrast, is based exclusively on ignorance of Catholic doctrine. This is why Protestant pastors so strictly forbid their adherents to read Catholic books, knowing that the truth set forth in them is quite clear and contagious to a straight soul in search of light. May this volume make known this truth that so brightly radiates from the Church, divine light, in the face of which appear the falsehoods of the would-be reformer and his many sectarian denominations. The Catholic Church is the full day of truth; Protestant sects are the dark night of error. To show this light, this day, this darkness, highlighting the good to be followed and the evil to avoid, such is the great aspiration of the author.

Fr. Julio Maria

 

CHAPTER I

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE CHURCH ...
Protestantism is called the set of sects that came from Luther's revolt. What does this name mean and express?
It means your supporters protest. And against what? - Against and doctrine of the Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church. And when did this protest begin?
In the fourteenth century; It is of relatively new origin as it dates from almost fourteen centuries after the appearance of the Roman Catholic Religion founded by Jesus Christ. And why did Luther protest?
To get revenge on the Pope who had not bowed to the whims of the heretic. The Protestants asserted that it was their break against the Roman Church that it had deviated from the teachings of Christ. EstaIs this statement true? ...
We are faced with one of these conclusions, a real dilemma: either Christ is a liar or Luther is false, for both, as we shall see, contradict each other in every line.


1. WHAT LIAR?

Jesus said to Peter, "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell (beings and passions) shall not prevail against it" (Matt. XVI, 18). And, even more explicit and categorical, Christ goes on: - “I was given all power in heaven and in earth; Go therefore (clothed with this power), and instruct all peoples, teaching them to observe the things which I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. ” (Mat. 28.18-20). Nothing more clear and positive. Christ, God, will be with the head of the Apostles until the end of time. This means that the Church will exist eternally in the purity and firmness of her faith, which will be infallible, for it will never succumb to the weight of falsehoods and passions. Such is the promise form of Jesus. However, Luther, and after him, his Protestant sons and grandchildren, say that Christ's institution has fallen from its divine height, becoming a den of vice and exploitation. And so the Wittemberg monk wanted to reform it. Who is the liar? The Divine Master or the revolting friar and his minions? Let us reason. If the Church succumbed by the influence of error and passion, as they claim, then we have three huge lies attributed to Jesus:
1a .: the gates of hell prevailed against it, despite Christ's contrary statement;
2a .: Peter ceased to be a STONE to make mud;
3a .: Christ left the Church after ensuring that He would stay with her until the end of time. Protestants answer: Which is the liar between the two: Jesus or Barabbas, Christ or Luther?

 

2. RIDICAL ASSERTION

Something even more foolish comes out of the supposed disappearance of the Church of Jesus Christ. The Church, like every human society, as it is a divine-human society, necessarily comprises two parts: one leader and one directed, or, as the catechism says, it contains the teaching element, the authority, and the student element, the faithful. Of these parts which being would have corrupted?
Was it the first, the teacher, made up of the successors of Peter, the bishops of Rome, the continuers of the apostles, the bishops of the world, and the representatives of the 72 disciples, the Catholic priests?
And among these which or which would have deteriorated? ... The Pope? But this alone does not constitute the Church. The bishops? - Nor are these, by themselves, the Church. The Fathers? - These too do not incarnate the Church. So would they all be wrong at once?
It is hard to believe in such widespread decay: it is impossible to even admit it. The teaching Church, that is, the Pope, the Bishops and the Fathers, has, through the ages, formed an army of about 500,000 people, educated and generally of position and responsibility! It would be permissible that in a society of so many members, scattered all over the world, belonging to all nations, climates, and countries, all at once going astray, rushing into error and idolatry: Such a claim would be more than ridiculous. But as for the student, the faithful, Catholics, spread throughout the universe, with millions of adherents in each country, consisting of emperors, kings, chiefs, doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc., world illustrations and men of the people. Would it be believable that all these people had fallen together in the most grotesque superstition so as to lose the belief of their ancestors, their own religion? Wouldn't it even be ridiculous to imagine such a thing?
And this would have happened not for a few years alone, or for a few centuries, but for hundreds of years for fifteen centuries! ... And to think that only after all this time has a single man come to discover the truth! ...
And even worse, when one would expect such a genius to be a saint, he appears as a libertine, drunk, proud traitor, what was "Lutero! ..." Wouldn't it really be the height of the absurd? It seems God would be mocking the world.

3. HOLINESS CONTINUES

We would find even more baffling things if we continued to look at the same subject. The religion of Jesus Christ had been lost, as the Protestants guarantee; the gospel was distorted, and true belief had ceased to exist from the second century until the advent of the German reformer. But, curious thing: in the interval of the 2nd century. Until the 15th century, the Catholic Church uninterruptedly produced large numbers of holy men, practicing heroic virtues and working miracles and being visibly assisted and inspired by God! The miracle is the great characteristic of holiness and truth. Only God can accomplish facts of this nature. Only he has the power to communicate such a gift to men.
And over the course of these centuries, he communicated it to thousands of privileged people belonging to the Catholic Church's guild, which, according to Protestants, was no longer the Church of God. Would God then pass on such power to idolaters and wicked men, that they might prove to be true the error in which they lived, and to show their vices as virtues?
In this case, of course, God would be cooperating for evil and, approving such a thing, would be deluding all mankind and losing souls! ... Who would have the courage to affirm this fact?
However, something else is not what the Protestant gentlemen say when they risk and support the ridiculous statement that we are commenting on here. If friends knew a little about ecclesiastical history and the lives of the saints, they would find a decisive argument in the continuing succession of people who shone for heroic and exemplary virtues through all ages. There can be no more tangible proof of the unbroken holiness of the Church, no better demonstration that it has never ceased to exist publicly, than the testimony of history always in its favor. To satisfy our curiosity and admiration, we will cite here some representatives from each century, chosen from hundreds of others.
NO 1 Century we have Jesus Christ and the Apostles;
NO 2 Century we have Saint Justin, Saint Irenaeus, Tertullian etc.
THIRD: Saint Hippolytus, St. Gregory, St. Cyprian, Origen, etc.
In the Fourth Century: St. Athanasius, St. Ephrem, St. Basil, St. Epiphanes, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory of Nisse, St. Jerome, St. Sophronius, St. John Chrysostom, etc.
In the Fifth Century: St. Augustine, St. Cyril, St. Basil of Celecius, St. John, St. Peter Chrysologus, St. Gregory the Great;
NO 6 CENTURY: S. Fulgencio, St. Anastasius, St. Andrew, S. Leandro.
NO 7 CENTURY: Holy Hesychium of Jerusalem, Saint Eli, Saint Ildefonso, St. Isidoro, S. Teonulfo, S. Beda, etc ....
NO 8 CENTURY: St. Gregory, St. Sergius, St. Leo, St. Germanus, St. John Damascene.
NO 9 o . CENTURY: S. Nichicphorus, Theophan, Strabo, Alcuin etc.
NO 10 o . CENTURY: Ven. Raimundo Jordão, S. Pedro Damião, S. Fulberto, St. Adalbert, St. Adelaide of Burgundy, etc.
NO 11 °. CENTURY: Saint Anselm, Saint Ivo de Chartres, S. Bernardo, S. Celestino, etc.
NO 12 o . CENTURY: Hugo and Ricardo of Saint Victor, Alexandre de Hales, Cardinal Hugo, etc.
NO 13 o . CENTURY: St. Albert, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, St. Dominic, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Anthony of Padua, Duns Scott, etc. IN THE 14th CENTURY: St. Bridget, St. Elizabeth, St. Vincent Ferrer, St. Bernardine of Seine, St. Leonardo, etc., etc.

 

4. The Protestant Lying

The above quotation is precisely aimed at that time when, according to our misguided brothers, the true Church would have disappeared. How could it have flourished so remarkably when it did not yet exist: How is this uninterrupted succession of Popes in Peter's Chair explained? In what way have they been able to live, throughout this time, within the Church, figures of consummate virtues, prophesying, working wonders and even raising the dead? How can this be?...
The Church had ceased to live, had fallen into apostasy, and yet it was the estuary of life and holiness. How to unravel such a strange fact? ...
One explanation is permissible, as the only true one. And it may not please our opponents. The Protestant lie - this is the answer.
The sad shame of the Reformers did nothing but slander and lie. Let their admirers and followers imitate us, even without believing in the bullshit. The great affirmation, however unshaken, full of life, is that the true Church, founded by Jesus Christ, never interrupted its existence, never ceased and decayed from its sublime function, nor denied its faith and holiness.
In this Church there may be gangrenous members, as there are in every association of men. It is necessary, however, to distinguish between society and its components. There had been no wrongdoing among us, and the Protestants would not possess Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Beza, and others, as well as this collection of apostate and forgotten priests of their faith and dignity proving that this did not pass Protestantism as a "sewer of Catholicism." according to the typical expression of a famous Protestant: - "When the Pope clears his domain, he throws the grass over the Protestant backyard wall." (Klaus Harm, Protestant).
Jesus Christ did not promise holiness, or perseverance, to all the members of the Church founded by him; but it guaranteed them to the Church itself, taken as a whole, to society. This, in the course of time, has been able to remain faithful to its dignity and mission, so that, today as tomorrow, and as it was in the days when the Divine Master lived on earth, she is holy and will be, despite all stones and all the mud that his enemies and opponents of all good throw at him, trying to muddle his immaculate tunic. The mud lies on their skulls and in this lies the reason for their hatred, the slander they invent and the persecution they move. The Church, so attacked today, shines in its majesty, while the thousand and one Protestant sects devour each other to the point where it can and should assert itself: there is no Protestantism today; there are only protestants.

 

5. PROTESTANT PROTESTS

The true and divine Church cannot lack human reformers, otherwise it would lose its main character. The church founded by Jesus Christ on the stone of Peter is none other than the ROMAN APOSTOLIC CATHOLIC.
Protestants are forced to confess that they do not originate with Peter, because he is the first pope, and therefore they hate the bishop of Rome. As Luther's descendants, they accompany the chief in his mania of protests against the holy apostolic institution. Now the Church of Rome is that of Peter, and it is perfectly identical with that of Christ. In protesting against it, therefore, they strike each other against the Divine Master, rise up against the truth, and claim to be the very truth that they are trying to replace. Is this possible?
Be logical, my friends! They want to follow the Bible, and only the Bible. But how can they not see that Matthew 28: 18-20 and Matthew 16:18 is pure Bible, pure Gospel?
Luther himself, who so falsified the Scriptures, dared not misrepresent the passages under consideration. The children of Luther are illogical when they reject all ecclesiastical authority and submit to the dictates of a baker and a mason's servant, who proclaim themselves ministers and go forth preaching the Gospel. Consider the nonsense in which they work: they repel the Roman Pontiff, diocesan pastors, and priests who have studied and are experienced in the divine and human sciences and are guided by their mentors, many of them fools, who have never attended a elementary school or a certificate of study. It is the height of folly.
It would suffice to reason that its founder Luther had neither mission nor ability to impress a new direction on a divine work. And that it needed and could not need human touch-ups, otherwise Christ himself would fall into the most pitiful contradiction and lie.
Any sincere Protestant must bow to these Gospel words, if he still believes it, and confess that Luther's church is but a protest, a revolt against the one true Church, founded by Christ upon Peter, made of stone, rock. eternal to remain unshaken in the midst of the waves of human error and passion.


6. THE WORK OF JESUS ​​CHRIST

To state, as is customary among dissenting brethren, that the institution of Christ has fallen into idolatry and paganism, is to sentence, in clear and positive terms: the Divine Master was deceived, for he intended to build an eternal work and made a durable institution. just for two centuries. Thus, the divine promises failed, proving to be the powerless Master to keep the institution open and wrapped in the firm promise of fruitfulness and duration.
And as a result, this Church, divine in its foundations, surrounded by guarantees of unfailing stability, disappears. And mankind would be worse off than before the Savior came, when at least there was still a true religion. Jesus Christ came into the world to replace the belief of the Jews with a more perfect one; or rather, he appeared to perfect the first, figurative in itself, to communicate to him all perfection by the fulfillment of ancient promises and prophecies. And behold, everything sinks into the chaos or plagues of human superstitions. After all, neither Judaism nor Christianity! ...
If only at that time Luther and the Protestants had arisen, one would have thought of a real resemblance, for it could be assured that he had come to uplift religion and bring it back to primitive purity.
But not! Fifteen centuries pass away ... and only then rises a drunken libertine apostate monk; and such a fall would have come to reform the traditional belief, the work of Christ... for he himself was the most dissolute of the time. Did you come to bring new doctrine?
He had the boldness to intend it. This Christian doctrine, already accepted worldwide as the teaching of Christ, was, in the eyes of the rebel, nothing more than a profound adulteration of the Gospel, a collection of beliefs sponsored by the antichrist of Rome, which Luther himself proclaimed shortly before. humanity and the pillar of truth ”. Nothing more ridiculous than the Lutheran claim. Then, for thirteen centuries, had the world remained in the absolute darkness of error, had humanity lived in ignorance of the truth, and would not God have raised even a seer and thaumaturge to unravel the secret of reigning corruption and point out the perpetrated misrepresentation?
Had this God been careless of his work, he who in the old law raised up prophets to keep his people in the practice of his commandments?
How can it be admitted that this God, who had just sacrificed the life of his incarnate Son, for the salvation of men, would disinterest himself after crucifixion and ascension into the heavens, neglecting his saving task that would let him slip? miserably in error, in darkness, to the point where it can no longer be recognized?
Such an assumption would be blasphemy and a real insult. Either God could not, or would not save his own work! If they thought a little about the consequences of such an assertion, the Protestants would be horrified at the fatal conclusion: Jesus wanted to found an immortal Church, his Church, with imperishable destinies, yet he did not have sufficient strength. the intelligence needed to keep it erect!
Thus Christ cannot be God, for God is omnipotent to accomplish all that He designs and wants. And by accepting that Luther had accomplished more than Jesus by supplanting him even, it would be concluded that he had been wiser and more powerful than the Son of God Himself ... Poor Protestant pride! What an abyss has not been thrown! ... In the depths of atheism, into the error of the "without God."

 

7. CONCLUSION

The truth is one. And it was Christ who gave it to us (John 1: 18-20) through his Church built on the rock of Peter. Whatever goes against the truth is called error. Now Luther teaches the opposite of what Peter and his successors taught. It is therefore wrong, and antichrist, in fact, is the sect he established.
Just as Pilate put before the exalted Jews to Jesus and Barabbas, common sense presents to humanity the figures of St. Peter and Luther, and asks: Which among them do you want to set free - Peter or Luther?
The sensible humanity, the religious universe, with unanimous voices, exclaims: We want Peter, because with him is the truth. The Protestant world, however, responding more to the blind hatred, excited by the modern Pharisees, their pastors and chiefs, shouts: We want Luther, we do not accept that Peter reigns over us. Poor Protestants! ... Such blindness, such misunderstanding is a great punishment from God: They have eyes and do not see. That is what it finally concludes.

CHAPTER II

AN AUTHENTIC PORTRAIT
Protestant friends say that Luther was God's special envoy to reform the fallen Catholic Church, or rather to lift it from death and burial in the mire of the greatest vices and filth. Unreasonable audacity is required to draw up the death certificate of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, to which he promised his perpetual assistance and the preservation of all error. Moreover, it takes an overabundance of the ignorant of history to belie known facts and mock all ancient historians. How is it that, before Luther, no author ever notices such an absence from the true Church, aspiring for any thaumaturge to rise from the grave, or Christ himself to rehabilitate her, crying out loudly with the same man? power with which he had raised Lazarus: Church, come out of this tomb ?! None of it all; Only after fifteen centuries did Protestants discover this total disappearance of the Church. According to them, God finally aroused the desired man by having a mission superior to the greatest of divine prophets and messengers, an instrument of the Most High, capable of reconstructing the work of Jesus Christ and restoring to him the primeval evangelical beauty. Such an individual was Luther. Let us examine in a moment the history of his life, its qualities and works; let us study it without exaggeration, in all impartiality, with a view only to the historically proven facts, to see if, in fact, the father of Protestantism bears credentials of his divine mission, for from a good tree, according to the sentence of the Divine Master, he will emerge. a good product, and a bad tree will come evil fruit.

 

1. FIRST YEARS OF LUTERO

Luther was born in Eilesben on November 10, 1483. His parents were poor peasants, sincere Catholics, according to Melanchton; Luther's mother was a virtuous woman dedicated to godliness. As for his father, if we credit Luther himself and his contemporaries, he was a rude, violent, almost cruel man. And it was to the violence of his father's father that at first he had educated him without affection and care, that the "reformer" attributed his hatred to all humanity. At the age of 6 he began his studies at Mansfeld, in the public school, where he is reported to have been constantly punished, which demonstrates his restless, turbulent genius, always carried to extremes. About his time at school, he left this note himself ̈ ”Our school was a hell and a purgatory where we were tormented with declines and verbs. The teacher was a tormentor. In one morning he came and beat me fifteen times. ”
At fourteen our hero went to Magdeburg, where he studied for some time under the direction of religious; Then we will meet him in Eisenach, begging in the streets, singing, and begging for a living. It was on this occasion that a pious widow, moved by the pitiful state of the little beggar and his beautiful voice, welcomed him, adopting him as his son (Luther, by H. Wachters). Due to the care of his benefactor, who paid for his studies, the boy attended the Latin Franciscan school. In 1501 the student left Eisenach to finish his studies in Erfurt, where, for three and a half years, he attended university, where he earned a bachelor's degree and a master's degree in science; in the first title he got 13th. Place between 57 students, and in the second, the 3rd. Place, which indicates that, as a teacher, he revealed himself to be a very lively, though not brilliant, intelligence.
After his studies, Luther intended to begin the courses of Canon and Civil Law, which he did for only a month. Suddenly, out of the blue, he left the university, returning to Mansfeld, where he had begun his primary education. Soon after, he headed for the convent. Here we face the mystery of Luther's vocation.

 

2. THE VOCATION OF LUTERO

To date, nothing presented the boy as a likely sign of divine calling to priestly or religious life. Of a Catholic student who was, without any trace capable of distinguishing him, with an angry and restless temperament, he suddenly decided to leave the world and retired to the Cloister. Concerning such a sudden resolution, there have been many legends that modern historical research casts doubt on or belies. In a letter to his father Luther once said that the fear of the "death threats" had taken from him an "involuntary promise." Some sought to know what threats he was referring to. Some are considering murder; others think of dueling; certain, from a lightning bolt that had fallen by his side, impressing him considerably. All this may be true, but it does not convince. On one occasion, in talks with friends, the “reformer” referred to a disaster he had had with him when accompanied by a friend outside Erfurt. Doing weapons exercises he unintentionally injured his own leg; so abundant was the loss of blood that it thought the time had come for death. Fearing the danger, he had invoked the protection of the Blessed Virgin, a prayer he repeated later. Another time Luther said that upon returning from a trip to Mansfeld, a violent storm surprised him; an electric spark fell at his feet, filling him with dread; on this occasion he would have exclaimed, "Sant'Anna avail me; I want to be a monk.
Were such events the cause of Luther's vocation? If he had never thought before to follow the monastic life, surely he would have made any other promise; but the fact that he turned his thoughts back to religious life seems to show that for some time he had nurtured such an idea, not responding to the call from Above for deficiency of courage.
Seeing himself in danger of life, he thought this a punishment from God and promised to accomplish what he already considered a vocation. This seems to be the most admissible opinion. Surely Luther soon did what he had promised. For the last time, he gathered his friends at a private party, and finally invited them to join him. They were reluctant. At last they followed him, as he had asked them. Thus on July 16, 1505 Luther entered the Augustinian Convent in Erfurt. "I joined the Cloister," he explains, "because I was desperate for my salvation." There the life of our suitor was divided between prayer, the study of Holy Scripture and the writings of the holy priests.
The constitutions of the Augustinians prescribe to aspirants: read carefully, listen with devotion and memorize the main passages of Holy Scripture; and to this end, on the day of profession, each monk receives a complete copy of the Bible. It is the radical refutation of Protestant historians who disclose that the Bible was carefully concealed and even linked by iron chains, so that Luther could not read it. Fortunately the Protestants themselves have refuted such nonsense. Let us hear Otto Scheel: “It had not been a day before reading the Bible had enriched Luther's soul: in it he had found consolation, light, and happiness” (Scheel-II: 2). His religious life offers nothing of note; Small facts, however, sometimes manifest their restlessness, always prone to excess, seeming to regard God not as a kindly father, but as a strict judge.
The chronicle of the monks of Luther's convent states that one day, as they recited the office, when the story of the demon-possessed deaf-mute was read in the Gospel, our hero suddenly fell to the ground, and in horrible contortions exclaimed: It's not me! I am not (the possessed) (Grisar 44). Speaking of his monastic life, he once said: “I was tormented, prayed, fasted, watched, and so cold I suffered that it would be enough to kill me” (Grisar, p.57).
These facts all reveal a nervous, hysterical disease, or great imbalance of consciousness; However, in all this the superiors did not see a serious impediment to the young monk's vocation, and on April 3, 1507 Luther was ordained a priest in the cathedral of Erfurt, celebrating his first Mass on May 2 of the same year. On this occasion, while reciting the prayer: Te igitur, at the beginning of the Canon, the neo-priest was seized with such a fear of God that he would have fled from the altar had the assistant priest not calmed him. In 1515, while beside his superior watching the procession of the Blessed Sacrament, such dread of God's nearness invaded him that he began to tremble from head to toe (Tischreden W.; I. N. 137).
Luther was a priest for eternity ... and nothing in this world or the next could erase the priestly character which in his hands should be a means of salvation for many and not, as it would soon become, an instrument of perdition.

 

3. INCOMPLETE STUDIES OF LUTERO

We now have before us the newly ordained monk on the threshold of his new life. Soon a first observation presents itself: in 1505 Luther had entered the convent; In 1507, two years later, he was ordained a priest. So short a break was just the time needed to make his novitiate or apprenticeship, from which it appears that he had taken an irregular course of theology, which he came to study only after ordination. What about this new period of your life?
Luther himself explains: "... I am from Occam's school, author and chief propagandist of nominalism," a system that denied the objective value of ideas, so that man can have no certainty of metaphysics, necessarily falling down. , in skepticism.
Truths, for example, such as the immortality of the soul, the existence, unity, goodness, and mercy of God, do not fall under the competence of reason, and men can know them only through revelation. Thus the role of intelligence becomes very restricted, and even more limited that of faith and that of revelation.
The simplification envisaged by Occam aimed at the suppression of scholastic teaching, whose doctrine admits that they become the most credible truths of faith through the aid of reason. So perverse the doctrine had penetrated many schools, and even the Augustinian monks of Erfurt were reportedly professing it.
Although nominalism did not directly attack the doctrines of the Church, it did not fail to place students on a dangerous slope that could easily lead them astray. Here we have, therefore, the beginning and perhaps the basis of the errors of the Protestant patriarch; This is a twofold foundation: Occam's deficiency in theological studies and false doctrines, which poisoned the first theological steps of the would-be reformer.
Shortly after his ordination, Luther was transferred to Wittemberg; There he met the Vicar General of the Order, Fr. Staupitz, who held, in addition to the position of superior, the professor of exegesis at the local university. If Staupitz had to visit the provincial residences from time to time, he could scarcely fulfill his office, so he was considering giving up and passing his chair to a successor of the same order. To replace him, he thought of Luther and advised him to prepare for a bachelor's degree in Holy Scripture in order to qualify as a teacher of this discipline. Effectively Luther followed his advice. And on March 9, 1509, he took a master's degree in that subject.
Studies thus precipitated and accumulated allowed him to conquer the coveted post, but did not give him the time to assimilate the doctrines seen, thus motivating, in his mind, a real shambles of ideas, without foundation, without evidence and without attachments. Grisar notes that even in Elbstad, the studies of the “reformer” failed (Grisar, 43). From Wittemberg they moved him to Erfurt again to perform the professorship there as a reader of theology, which he had studied hastily, incompletely, and wrongly.

 

4. TRAVEL TO ROME

In Erfurt the new reader of theology went to find double warfare: - in the city where he had found a popular uprising, and in the convent of the Augustinian friars in which discord was of a different kind. At that time the Congregation encompassed two provinces: the German part, stricter in its observance of the rules, and the Saxon, somewhat more mitigated in primitive rigor. Father Staupitz, appointed Provincial Vicar General for Germany, sought to bring together the two provinces under his purview, introducing strict observance into them. The Holy See favored this measure of unity, also allowing the two parties to meet and choose one Vicar General. The choice fell on Staupitz. This pleased almost every home. Seven of the German provinces resolved Protestant and among them was the Erfurt convent. A deputation was sent to Rome to defend the interests of the unsubmissive before the Roman Curia; Luther was part of this commission.
What impression did he get from the Eternal City? An all materialistic view, as it is discovered by its way of describing what it sees there. It did not have the "reformer" artist's soul, to admire greatness, panoramas, antiques; nor did he possess a keen spirit capable of penetrating and reading history in the monuments. Little commitment offered her to stay in the great metropolis of Christianity. He wished to see the Pope and could not, because the Holy Father was then traveling through northern Italy. And the complaint against the union of the two Augustinian provinces was not accepted by Rome, which greatly contradicted the disgruntled friar. It is only ten years after this that he will cry out against the alleged abuses of the Roman Church. It seems that Luther no longer returned to Erfurt, but soon moved to Wittemberg, where he continued to study theology. In October 1512 there received the cap and doctoral ring in the matter; In the same month he began teaching Holy Scripture, replacing Staupitz. At this point Luther began to manifest e = his errors of principle, and his ignorance in theological matters. In 1515 he began to explain the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, and it was from the misunderstanding and interpretation of this Pauline letter that the teacher made the errors about grace and salvation.

 

5. THE TWO GREAT ERRORS OF LUTERO

Two were the fundamental errors of the new professor - first: the Bible alone is the supreme rule of faith; Second, man is justified only by faith, and good works are of no use for justification. Since that time these two errors have appeared as the basic points of all his doctrines.
The first of these rules of belief replaces the authority of the Church, supreme judge in matters of faith, with free will, thereby inflicting an infernal blow on the visible unity of Christendom.
The other perverts the whole doctrine of the relationship between creature and Creator. Combined, these two subversive principles produce the most tremendous moral disorder in souls and society. Had Luther deepened the extent of his belief postulates?
The question is imperative for us and the answer is far-reaching. We think not. No doubt Luther had intelligence; but he was a terrible psychologist; as we have seen above, his theological studies, which had been poorly assimilated and very superficial, had been made with precipitation; He was more philosopher than theologian, proving subtle in reasoning, but weak in revealed doctrine.
This assertion finds proof at every step in his writings. Moreover, he was haughty, proud, with an overly sharp natural inclination to revolt. A man of that carat is usually stubborn. For fifteen centuries the Church had interpreted and expounded the Bible in the light of its tradition, its own history, and infallible in its teaching and decisions about it, had been the living rule of faith in the past. The rebel monk did not realize the value and security of this supreme authority, and his supreme pride led him to believe that man is his own rule of faith. For him there was no other source of revealed truth than a dumb (though inspired) book of which each individual is made judge.
This book, therefore, must be the guide and standard of faith for all without distinction, becoming all infallible, excluding, of course, priests, bishops and the Pope. Luther could not tolerate the existence of an infallible man in the Church; but by way of contradiction he admitted that all individuals were infallible except the Pontiff of Rome, who is in fact the only infallible by divine institution.
In theory such was Luther's doctrine, although in practice he did not accept that no one contradicted his views. The principle: "justification by faith alone" was equally deleterious and perverse, for it should produce the most disastrous results in a fallen society. According to Catholic teaching, the justifying faith is a living faith, that is, founded on revelation and informed by charity. Luther does not want to know of charity; it is enough for him to have confidence in God, and he, for Christ's sake, will no longer impute our sins to us, but will treat us as innocent and holy. To safeguard such an idea, Luther did not tremble in falsifying the text of St. Paul (Romans 3:28).
The apostle had written, "We believe that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." The "reformer" transcribes the text thus: "Man 'justified only by faith." One soon sees the perversity of the false interpreter.
St. Paul intends to show that, for one to be saved, it is not enough to perform only the works prescribed by the law of Moses, but that, besides, it is necessary to have faith in God; Luther, however, after liquidating the works of the Mosaic law, suppressed even those of the new law, contenting himself only with faith. And, as in the Epistle of St. James these textual words read: “Man 'justified by works by faith, and not by faith alone” (James 2: 14-28), the innovator called this epistle “Straw Epistle” .
Such is Luther's "great" discovery, which was to him the supreme novelty, but to the world it was but the great heresy. In its peculiar way of understanding the Bible fills its lack of sure knowledge. This is the beginning of the decadence of the “reformer,” whose remote foundations we saw him drinking in the erroneous Nominalist philosophy that had followed from the pews.

 

6. CONCLUSION

This is the first phase of Luther's life. Seen through a cursory glance, nothing is still very important; yet at the heart of this restless soul serious troubles were stirring. It is that the great falls do not come true suddenly, as the great virtues do not come in a day. To want to judge Luther for the events in which he came to exert a preponderant influence at the time is to collect effects as if they were causes, and to attribute to a blind destiny what is actually a final conclusion.
The first education in the father's house, the first studies, the environment in which he found himself, the conversion — all necessarily constitute the plot that was to shape Luther's character and tendencies. From the news that came to us from his school days, we can see that he had been a pesky, insubordinate, choleric boy, and given to independence and insubmission. A well behaved and exemplary student is not continually punished. And Luther was punished all the time. Do not agree and always complaining against penalties and orders, of continuous dislike to those who did not follow his ideas, so grew the future "reformer". Belonging to a rather addicted time, deprived of affection and vigilance, the road of early corruption was wide open before him, promising to quench his instincts ...
Pride was joined by immorality. The charge is serious. Requires proof. Here they are: Referring to his life prior to conversion, he once let these words escape: “Yes, I was a great, sad, and shameful sinner; I had a guilty youth ”(Weimar, 26,508).
Also related to this period of Luther's life are two contemporary documents, quite unfavorable to the integrity of his customs. The first is from Jerome Dumgersheim, who, in a writing against the heretic, publicly assaulted him on the bad habits of his student life, continued later, and the causes of his apostasy. Elsewhere the same author spoke of serious misconduct, and appealed for the testimony of one of those comrades who later accompanied him to the convent's door.
The second testimony of Jerome Emser who had met Luther as a student in Erfurt. In 1520, in a controversy, the rebellious monk remembered some slips of his opponent. Emser, who was not blameless, replied in the same tone: "Perhaps you ignore that I know about you very serious faults? ..." And Luther did not prolong the attack, he never left the contender unanswered! .. Then he was silent, and neither Dumgersheim nor Emser answered a word. Everything that has been said in this chapter makes the first phase of life we ​​are exposing in very vivid colors.

 

CHAPTER III

FALL OF LUTERO
The face of Luther's youth is already known to us. This period of his existence was certainly not the proper preparation for the sublime mission of those who claimed to be called by God to completely change the ideas of a century and reform the Church of Christ. The good thing is that the reader soon knows nothing about me being at my own risk. My appreciation is based on contemporary documents, because I resorted to the best modern authors who reported the facts (*).
Earlier we saw the tendencies of his childhood; These are already presented as certain signs in youth. after all, in mature age, they will be fait accompli. Thus we have fulfilled the word of wisdom: “A man shall not depart in old age from the way followed in his youth. What have you not gathered together in your youth, how can you find it in your old age? ”(Ecclesiastical 25,5). Let us now enter the intricacies of the second phase of this sadly famous and cynically corrupt existence.

 

1. THE SOUL STATE AND THE LUTERO CONVERSION

We saw Luther practicing at the University of Wittemberg: there he senselessly rushed into the greatest absurdities and errors which, through the height of mental obsession, he took to be "The Discovery of Truth," buried by the ancients. Can you believe in the sincerity of your conversion?
We have chosen the affirmative, although it may be admitted that the main motive of this life change has been the fear of punishment rather than the desire to serve God. Why this fear? ... Due to the two reasons already exposed: his rapt genius that in the early years had attracted so much punishment, and his free and unruly life of youth.
On closer examination, Luther's conversion, while honestly on his part, did not have sufficiently supernatural foundations to bear the brunt of his state of preparatory sacrifices to holiness.  Entering the convent, his restless mood found in this environment, as in the multiple tasks that involved it, a concern to keep it, in relation to the outside, in the straight line of duty. But the well-known axiom - OMNE VIOLENTUM NON DURAT - found in Luther the full application. I wanted to go out of evil and do good; But lacking the supernatural support for his resolution, his willingness, resulting in a continuous effort, became for him a yoke and a torment.
This formal opposition between Luther's ideas, or tendencies, and his tenor of life, generated in him a terrible scruple, by modern psychologists called OBSESSION: a state of mind more commonly than is generally considered, especially among students and intellectuals.
To disguise his reality, he lends himself the benign name of neurasthenia, nervousness, mania; fundamentally, however, it is but a real disease: OBSESSION or SCRIPPLE.
As it begins to manifest itself, this annoying impression is barely perceptible, and goes no further than a disquieting abatement of anything obscure and threatening. Soon, however, this disposition changes: fear is determined, fixed IDEA appears as the main factor and weighs on all deliberations of the person, influencing his affective life, on everything he does; in a word, such an IMPORTANT AND PATIENT idea.
Often it does not go beyond the limits of a simple "maybe", but it is an unsettling doubt martyring the sick; Such a state, after all, thus gradually assumes the aspect of true madness. As an effect of the phenomenon, the obsessed is assailed with vacillations of the mind, condemned to never find certainty, exactly in the issues that most closely concern him. Just one thing he wants, and then the most fantastic indecision comes to him, annoying and impelling him to hate what he loved and wanted most.
It was as a result of this disposition that Luther saw in the troubles that struck him, even in simple minor accidents, tremendous threats and punishments from God. This tells us of his sudden decision to become a monk. He has since been the victim of an obsession whose tyranny has vainly sought to escape. These slight psychological remarks find full confirmation in Luther's subsequent words and gestures upon entering the convent. Let us hear something from his 1535 writing at Wittemberg, already a former friar, in his commentary to the Galatian Epistle: “While still a monk, I thought myself lost, without salvation possible, feeling with such violence, impulses and sinful attractions and a strong tendency to anger, hatred and envy against one of my brothers in habit. This evil was continually renewed and I could find no rest. And goes on: “Ah! If I had then understood Paul's word: the flesh fights the spirit, and both are mutually hostile ”(Erl. Com. In Gall. III).
All this further accentuates the great misfortune of scruple or the obsession to pursue it from childhood. ------------------- (*) In addition to the book of Grisar and Luther's works collected by Weimar, I am particularly following a Dutch author: HJ Achters: “Luther, leven, persoon, leer ”, a summary of all that has been said to be most founded on Luther. -------------------

 

2. LUTERO'S SCULPTURES

As we have seen, our man was nothing short of scrupulous and obsessed with the fixed idea of ​​God's rigor. Unaware of the influence of this psychological state on a person, Protestants do not admit it to Luther, and even wrongly attribute to Catholicism all the "reformer" ills. For, for them, BOSS must always be the HERO, whose thirst for truth and whose yearnings for peace with God have found no possibility in the Catholic Church of being satisfied.
There are, to attest to Luther's abnormal state of mind, renowned administrators, first-rate men, such as Grisar, Denifle, Paquier, Duinster, and so on. Protestant writer Otto Scheel attests that Luther was often reprimanded during his novitiate, because, continually disturbed, he saw everything through the prism of his scruples that everything was a sin.
What is the cause of such a distressing state of soul? Simply Luther's false conception of divine grace. Surely he aspired to enjoy that peace and joy infused with grace in the spirit; His moral certainty of being well with God was not enough; He wanted to obtain sensitive proof, this consolation that God sometimes gives to some generous souls and often refuses others. Superiors and spiritual teachers pointed out the error. Lost time.
Luther followed his own idea, no one wanting to submit. They were powerless to remedy the violent practices of mortification to which they continually resorted. The defect was of another nature, for it was but a kind of "ultimatum" cast into the face of Our Lord. St. Augustine was expressing admirably about this: VIS ESCAPE DEO, FUGE IN DEUM - whoever wants to escape from God, take refuge in him. Poor Luther, instead, seemed never to have felt the sweet, comforting intimacy with God, throwing himself blindly into the devil's clutches when his Father's loving lap was his place.
In view of such a pitiful state, he gradually abandoned the prayers prescribed to the priests, and became absorbed, body and soul, in the outward, engaging, materializing activity, so much so that in 1516 he wrote to Lange: There is plenty of time to say the breviary and to celebrate Mass. Add to this the temptations I have. " (Wette I, 41). Here is Luther's misfortune. He was a loser, surrendering his weapons, capitulating shamefully. From that time the poor monk began to ask himself: Why can't I find peace and satisfaction in the convent?
Why do I feel more discouraged today than in the early days of the novitiate? After so many efforts, I could do nothing. And if it does not save me in papism, is there any possibility of someone else getting it? ... (Wachters; Luther, 46).
In the face of its turbulent spirit and peopled with revolt, the ghost of error arose. Then came the question: Is there not in human nature a focus of wicked inclinations, more powerful than our will, which consumes us, and it is impossible for us to quench its flames?
And, listening to his willful character and personal ideas, he finally concluded: "Human nature is corrupted by original sin to the last fibers, and the desire for evil is invincible." (Jaques Maurtain: Trois Refomateurs 1925). It was the hopeless fall, the formal heresy. Thus the source of all its errors and blame has been established. The disaster had as its starting point the scruple, the obsession, the fear of God, the rebellion against everything and everyone. And such a sick spirit threw him into the abyss. It is known, moreover, that a scrupulous man may overnight fall in the opposite excess to that of his scruple. For many such a disposition leads to a corrupting laxism. For Luther, however, he led him to the founding of a new religious sect.

 

3. CONCLUSION

Luther is therefore perverted in body and soul. Since then he was a fallen man, addicted to addiction, lost in debauchery. And soon after, a revolt in open rebellion against society, against the Church and against God. Narrating his mood, he once said: "All those to whom I had communicated my state immediately said to me: I do not understand your difficulty. And I reflected: am I the only one who is struggling in such a sad situation? am i so tempted? ...
In fact, everywhere I saw horrible visions and ghost appearances. "(Hausrath: Luther leben, p. 30). Even confession, which brings relief and peace to all Christians, became for him a source Despondent, he sought salvation, but could not find it. Luther had forgotten the sweet Christ who said, "Come to me, all you who are suffering, and be burdened, and I will relieve you" (Matt. XI, 28). The Jesus of the tabernacle, prisoner of love, was for him no more than an angry judge, sitting menacingly over a rainbow "(Wachters, p.44).  “I confess to you, I told a friend, in the same year 1516, that my life is getting closer and closer to the eternal; I always become worse and more execrable. ” (Enders I, 16).
Shortly before (1515), communicating his state of mind to his superior, Fr. Staupitz painfully revealed to him: "I am a man exposed and implicated in bad society, papule, carnal movements, neglect and other troubles. that come together from my own craft "(Wette I, 232). Such words make it clear what Luther's soul was inside. Overly proud no one wanted to submit. But at times, however humiliating it seemed, the confession of the truth escaped him, like the muffled flames of an inner fire, forcing himself to escape. Then any favorable occasion would change his obsession with outward revolt to hand him over, chained, to the domain of the most abject passions he had failed to overcome, by disregarding the proper means, not giving up fixed ideas, and evading obedience. .
Converted BY FEAR. And yet fear will make you fall into the mire of vice. Love for God and souls could not get hold of his heart. And this vacuum was filled by rebellion, hatred, grudge, and carnal lowliness. He was not impressed at all by divine goodness. But isolated in his misery, wrapped in pride, he wanted to dictate laws to God Himself and to impose Himself. Then God turned from the wretch who had repelled him, leaving him to the instincts of his own wickedness. God gives his grace to the humble, but resists the proud (Pr 3,34).

 

CHAPTER IV

THE ENTRY IN SCENE
Given Luther's turbulent nature, it is soon understood that his new doctrines spelling out: "ONLY THE BIBLE IS REQUIRED," AND IS THE FAITH THAT SAVES - they would not be locked in the limited space of his monastic cell. The revolting friar was not a man of half measures; after falling, he would necessarily drag another with him, for the ideas conceived in the falsified reading of the Epistle to the Romans soon made him a true OBSESSION, beginning to inform his whole life and his activities.
There was only one unlucky occasion to be manifested in public. And this circumstance was not delayed. It was the preaching of indulgences in Germany. As the reformer himself confessed, they meant little to him such spiritual benefits, even to the point of ignoring indulgence (WWI 65). Let us analyze here the unfolding of the facts we have named: THE ENTRY OF LUTERO IN SCENE.

 

1. THE ISSUE OF INDULGENCES

The Holy See had long planned to build a large basilica in Rome in honor of St. Peter, replacing the old church of the same name. Pope Julius II's idea in 1506 was to make catholicity contribute to the erection of the monument which must have been a public manifestation of Catholic unity; the project surpassed the most sumptuous buildings in the world. In order for Catholics around the world to be interested in the common work, the Pope granted a special indulgence to all the co-workers of this enterprise through alms. Such indulgence had already been preached in almost every country except Germany because of the large sums that the Germanic empire had by law to give to Rome, which had previously aroused some discontent. Pope Leo X judged that such animosity had disappeared, and Germany could also contribute to opposing his turn to help the Basilica of Rome, so he published the Bull of Indulgences in March 1515.
They were conditions to profit indulgence: confession, communion, a day of fasting, a visit to seven churches or altars and a handout for the Basilica under construction. The archbishop of Mainz was appointed commissioner of this indulgence, and it is due to enter into force in Lent 1517. The archbishop appointed as deputy commissioner of the archbishop of Magdeburg the Dominican John Tetzel, who had previously held the same office in Mainz, the previous year. How did Father Tetzel perform this office?
The Dominican was a talented, popular speaker, but, according to Grisar's report, he exaggerated by explaining how the indulgences were applied to the living. There are those who claim that the deviations in the preacher's expressions in no way affected his always accurate doctrine. In ecclesiastical teaching, INDULGENCE IS THE REMISSION OF THE TEMPORAL PENALTY DUE TO ALREADY FORGIVEN SINS, a spiritual benefit that the Church bestows under certain clauses upon those in a state of grace, applying to her the infinite merits of Jesus Christ, and the superabundants of Mary. Most Holy and Holy, which constitute the treasure of the Church.
Plenary indulgence pardons all temporal punishment, while partial forgiveness erases only part of it. In order to profit from indulgences, it is important to be in a state of grace and to fulfill what they prescribe. By virtue of the Communion of Saints, indulgences can generally be applied to the souls of purgatory, but without knowing for sure the fruits practically communicated to them. Such application, in fact, depends not only on the Church, but on the will of God. After Luther's revolt, and to motivate it, Protestants invented a thousand and one slander against Tetzel and the object of his preaching, but the attacks were without foundation and without proof.

 

2. The Declaration of War

Tetzel did not speak in Wittemberg, but in Saxony in Juterbog; Thus, Luther did not personally hear such preaching, knowing it through the information of his students and friends. Luther flared, finding the occasion to act favorable. And soon it began, determined to all excesses, with all the ardor of its fiery temper, eager for prowess and novelty.
On the eve of the feast of All Saints, orago of the Church of Augustinians, a crowd was huddling in the square to earn the Porciuncula's indulgence, when Luther appeared with 95 theses contrary to the indulgences, which he posted at the door of the temple. It was the declaration of religious war. The new heretic rose against the teaching of theology, declaring that the indulgences had no value before God, but merely canonical imposed by the Church. In addition, it denied the doctrine concerning the treasury of the Church. Finally, Luther asks: Why doesn't the Pope build St. Peter's Basilica with his own money, he who has greater riches than the wealthier Christ, instead of turning to the poor faithful?
On the same day the revolt sent the thesis to the archbishop of Mainz, advising him to replace the preaching of indulgences with others, to avoid writing against this doctrine. Tetzel, foreseeing the significance and rapid propaganda of Luther's theses, immediately set out to campaign against his adversary. To this end, he published a list of 106 propositions he defended on January 20, 1518, publicly, at the University of Francfort.
Luther had the weapons, and instead of reflecting and comparing the doctrines expounded by him with those of his adversary, he began to attack the scholastic doctrine of confession, contrition, and satisfaction with barely contained fury. To friends who observed the eccentricity of the new doctrine, Luther replied with his usual stubbornness: “It matters little to me that some consider me a heretic; they are dark brains that barely smelled the Bible. ”
Tetzel remained steadfast and with the shrewd and theological readiness that exalted him, he soon understood deeply the perversity of Lutheran theories. While many theologians saw in these discussions a simple matter of words, Tetzel felt that a true heresy was at stake, the consequences of which would shake faith in many Catholics. In fact, the issue of indulgences was rapidly disappearing, and by May 1518 all discussion had shifted to the authority of the Church.
The news spread famously among the people, who appreciated, above all, the criticism of certain real or fictitious slips between the clergy and the instigation against the payment of any tribute or support that the Church might require. here simply to criticize abuses, but to be the rebel's desire a complete break with the doctrine and authority of the Church.

 

3. FIRST REACTION OF THE CHURCH

Heresiarch's revolutionary ideas echoed throughout Germany and shook the belief of many, especially as the ground was admirably prepared to receive any seed of protest and insurrection. Indeed, the sixteenth century was of almost universal decay, and the Divine Religion did not escape its material part from the influx of such a corrupting environment. There were abuses in the governments, and even the subaltern government of the Church, due to the ambition of honors, fortune, and positions.
Catholic doctrine has never wavered because of its divine promises; but their members are men, and as such are likely to be imbued with the ideas of the places where they are born and where they are educated. Unfortunately, many do not know how to distinguish between DOCTRINE and PERSON, confusing the latter with that and attributing to the former, - what happened to Luther, - which is exclusively the latter. This is what happened to Luther and his minions, assuming they were in good faith in this war against the Church. There were defects in the lives of Catholics; but there was no such thing in ecclesiastical teaching.
The discontented intended to attack the abuses; they could do it. But instead they attacked the doctrine, letting the ever-growing abuses subsist, demolishing the true teaching for the benefit of the people or their mistakes. This was the great aberration, or Luther's sad confusion. The Archbishop of Mainz, Open Archbishop of Brandeburg, seeing the error take shape, denounced it to Rome in January 1518. On February 3 of that year, Pope Leo X wrote to the substitute of the Superior General of the Augustinians, commissioning him. to persuade Luther, his subject, to give up his dangerous or wrong opinions, to prevent this spark of error from resulting in a fire, perhaps impossible to quench later. Unfortunately, it was no longer a simple spark, but a burning bonfire. Luther seems to have found in his order several accomplices, sharing his ideas and errors. The only measure known to be taken by his superiors was to prevent Luther's reelection as district vicar. The deposed monk did not continue in his office, but continued his revolt, attacking the doctrine and authority of the Catholic Church.

 

4. LUTERO AND THE POPE

In the face of Luther's persistence, the Dominicans again denounced him to Rome. The rebel monk feared excommunication and, in anticipation of it, sought to avoid the impression it would necessarily have on the public. In May 1518 he preached on the Consequences of Excommunication, seeking to mitigate them as much as possible and to dispose of the spirit of the population in his favor. On the same occasion he sent Pope Leo X a defense of his teachings on indulgences, complaining about the unjust accusations made against him.
He tells, in his own way and falsely, the cause of this struggle, declaring I cannot retract. Despite this stubbornness, he declared by the same letter to hear the voice of Leo, as the voice of Christ, who speaks and directs for him. “Make me live and kill, call, approve, reject as you please” writes the Pope; and at the same time, in mischievous language and revolting cynicism, writes to a friend: “I do not care whether I like the Pope, a man like the others. There were even Popes who not only made mistakes and crimes, but even monstrosities. I listen to the Pope as Pope when he teaches the laws of the Church according to the Councils, but not when he speaks for himself ”(Luther's Works, Weimar).
He judged the Holy See of its duty to take further steps against him. He called Luther to Rome, where he was to report within 60 days. He was determined not to obey and sought protection from Prince Frederick and Emperor Maximilian. He asked Frederick to call him before the Kingdom Council, then assembled in Ausburg, for wanting to be tried by German judges.
In order not to irritate the spirits, the Pope granted him permission to appear in Augsburg, before the Holy See's legacy, the Cardinal Cajetano, with faculties to address the matter. On October 7 Luther arrived in Augsburg, having several conferences and interviews there with Prince Frederick and the Cardinal on the 12th and 13th of the same month. The papal envoy was kind and patient, and having Luther declared that he was ready to follow in his words and deeds the doctrine of the Church of Rome, he pointed out to him the two notorious errors: the denial of the Church's treasures. as the depository of indulgences, and the opinion of the exclusivity of salvation by faith alone. The cardinal did not allow discussions, as the two formally opposed the doctrine of the Church. Luther responded to the legacy: "I cannot retract unless I have been proved to have taught anything contrary to the Scriptures, the Holy Fathers, the decisions of the Popes or common sense."
The interview ended fruitlessly; the revolting monk protested to obey the Pope at all, while at the same time not agreeing with him at all. From there Luther retired to his residence, but to his astonishment he secretly fled Augsburg on the night of October 20 to 21, returning to Wittemberg, where he found support in the person of his superior Stuapitz. Luther, having played such a sad and cowardly role, was pleased to be away from Augsburg, where he would not find the waiting support. On November 28, to apologize, he appealed from the Pope's sentence to a general council. It was just a means of saving time.
Luther was definitely lost and increasingly stubborn in his ideas of revolt. A letter to his friend Lenk from Nuremberg conveys his true ideas and his hatred of the Pope. “The fight is not even started,” he writes, “far from these gentlemen waiting for the end. I refer you to the facts of Augsburg to see that, as I think, the true Antichrist of whom Paul reigns in the See of Rome; I think I can prove that he is worse than the Turks ”(Enders Correp. I. 316-II / 12/1518). Anyone who speaks this way is determined to continue in error and follow it to the end. Luther will go on with his fiery speeches of insubmission, and one day he exclaimed with self-love, "Rome may try to condemn me, but Christ will never depart from me" (Letters I. 30, .320 to Staupitz 13 Dec. .1518).

 

5. LEIPZIG'S DISCUSSION

Outwardly the fight had calmed down a little. Rome stalled, awaiting the conversion of the prodigal son. After the emperor Miximilian died on January 12, 1519, it was not until the election of his successor Charles V (October 1519) that the case against Luther was resumed. In the meantime, a new event had patented Luther's ill will: Leipzig's discussion.
Luther's errors spread with the repulsion of some and the approval of others. Soon the universities of Germany themselves would see their opinions divided, the effect of the doubts and discussions raised. The weakening of faith and the relaxation of morals were a propitious ground for news and revolt.
The universities of Wittemberg, Ingolstad and Leipzig have combined a public debate to resolve the pending issue. The place chosen was the castle of Count Jorge de Sax in Leipzig. Here the representatives of each party should meet. The castle hall of honor was divided into two parts for the two factions, with two pulpits in the center, facing each other. The discussion began on June 27, 1519 between Carlostad and Eck. Luther's envoy was shamefully defeated and could neither prove his thesis nor refute his antagonist's. Referring later to this failure, Luther said: “In Leipzig Carlostad has collected shame rather than honor, showing himself to be a miserable polemicist with a foolish and foolish spirit” (H. Boeckmer: Der Junge Luther 1929, p. 255). The impression was terrible for the alleged reform. The supporters called Luther to avenge the undoing and to erect the compromised honor of the new doctrine.
On July 4 the controversy was replayed, this time between Luther and Dr. Eck. Everything soon converged on the throbbing issue: the Church's authority in matters of doctrine. Luther had opposed indulgences, proclaiming the supreme value of the Bible and the uselessness of good works, but he had not yet formed an opinion on the jurisdiction of the Church in matters of doctrine. He fell in contradiction, hesitated, publicly adhering to the condemned doctrines of Huss, rejecting the authority of the Church. Dr. Eck victoriously refuted heretical assertions, and Luther played no brighter role than his defeated representative, Carlostad.
The sectarian spirits raged, and several began shouting at Eck's Catholic claims. On July 14, the discussion ended, bringing the laurels of triumph to Dr. Eck, as Luther himself later stated in a letter to Melanchton: “Eck has the advantages: he triumphs and reigns. These Leipzigans did not greet us or visit us, but treated us like enemies as they accompanied Eck everywhere ... to our shame ... there is all the drama: it started badly and it ended worse ... we discussed it badly ”(Enders: II, 85, July 20, 1519). Count George de Saxe, the people of Leipzig, the university, and hesitant Catholics were strengthened in their faith, but Luther, falling under the cover of his wounded self-love, became increasingly intractable and rude. He was definitely made a heretic.

 

6. LUTERO HOLES

Luther understood that Rome, in the face of these events, would no longer remain silent for a long time and decided to take the lead to break publicly with the papacy. In 1520 he published a slogan entitled "From the Papacy of Rome." It was a violent and rude response to the Franciscan Augustine Halfeld, who had published a writing in defense of the divine rights of the papacy. This writing, according to a Protestant of that time, mocked logic and put its strength into great words. He treated Halfeld as a donkey, who cannot bray, and expounded his heretical doctrine about the invisible kingdom of the Church and the universal priesthood, which left no room for the papacy.
The rebellious monk became a true energetic, blaspheming, insulting all who were not for his ideas. Prieirias had refuted some errors of Luther. This one does not delay with the answer: “This wretched man, he writes, has produced a writing which seems to be made by Satan himself, in the depths of hell... If such is the doctrine of Rome, I declare that truly the antichrist is sitting in the temple of God and reigns in Rome, the true Babylon, clothed in purple, the court of Rome being the synagogue of Satan. ”
The furious monk continues, looking like a true possession: "Against the wrath of the Roman Curia," he continues, "there seems to be no other way but for the emperor, kings, and princes to face this plague by force of arms and to strain it from the earth." “If we punish thieves with the gallows, bandits with the sword, heretics with the fire, why do we not attack with any weapon these indoctrinators of corruption, these cardinals, these popes, and all this crook of Roman Sodom, which leads the whole Church to decay ? Why do we not wash our hands in his blood? ”(Correspond. III. 73. Jan. 1521). Dominican Inquisitor Jacques von Hostraten is no better welcomed. In Luther's expression, he is a murderer, crazy and bloodthirsty, who cannot be quenched except by the blood of Christians ... must look for beetles in the manure rather than Christians until he learns what sin, error and heresy are. ... for, the furious monk continues, I have never seen a bigger donkey than you ... you are a blind head, covered up; you, rabid dog ... enemy of the truth, heretic, for you bring in more poison than all the heretics of the last 4,000 years (Works Luther, Weimar II. 384).
The universities of Leuven and Cologne have not escaped the reformer's furious fury. According to their custom, they had spoken out against certain assertions of the Wittemberg professor. He answered them at once: "Until you have refuted me, I attach so much to your condemnations as I care about the blasphemies of a drunken woman!" (Works Weimar VI. 157). In a letter to his palatine friend, he treats these doctors as "donkeys of Leuven and Cologne". In 1518 Luther rightly exclaims, "I am wholly the man of contention; I am, according to the words of Jeremiah, the man of discord" (Grisar I. 340) .7.

 

CONCLUSION

Here's how Luther came into the picture. One soon sees that he is not a reformer willing to root out abuses and to bring men back to the practice of virtues they had abandoned. He is a man, confident only in his own worth and personality, proud to the point where he prefers his opinions to those of the whole world; It is a restless spirit in search of news, or, as we saw at the beginning, a man obsessed with a fixed idea that wants to impose itself on everyone.
In a word, it's an abnormal, sick, sort of a neuropath. If, at this time, there had been spiritualism, it would be presumed that Luther had cast his soul into spiritist practices without thinking of the founding of a heretical sect. The sensible people ask if such can be the disposition, the way of acting, the pretensions of a reformer of religion, of a man chosen by God, as Protestants say, to bring the true Church back to the purity of its principles and doctrines. . It's impossible. Simple common sense protests against the Christian belief. The reformer of a divine religion must be at least a man of virtue, calm, prudent; Luther, however, presents himself as a vulgar insulting, insolent, rude, indecent and often grotesque. Through your life, your words and deeds, you feel only the passion, the pride, the sensuality, the spirit of revolt.
Luther, by doctrine, is the founder of Protestantism; by deeds he is the founder of the communist-revolutionary mentality. This first phase of Luther's public life should be well emphasized, for it is, with its preludes already exposed, the premises of the innumerable conclusions which we will soon be compelled to draw from this hectic and sadly fruitful life.

 

CHAPTER V

LUTERO'S CONDEMNATION

Even with all his bluster and teasing, the "reformer" felt restless. After rebelling against the Church, he turned to the help of the great of his time. On October 23, 1520, he wrote to Emperor Charles V, saying he was eager to appear before him, LIKE A FLUE before the king of kings, a universal sovereign. “Against my will, he stressed in his letter, I introduced myself publicly on the scene; if I ever wrote anything, it was because others forced it by force or scam; I have never aspired for anything other than the solitude of my cell ... But for almost three years I have been exposed to the hatred of others, delivered to all sorts of derision and danger. In vain I beg forgive me; in vain do I promise to shut up; in vain I offer the conditions of peace; in vain I hope better instructions for me .; they all cast themselves upon me to destroy the whole Gospel. ” And in such a situation Luther pleaded with the civil authority to "defend him, not to him, forlorn and fallen to the ground, but to the treasure of truth." ... Here is the father of the Protestants, the "sublime Luther" begging, submissive and full. of flattery, the protection of the potentates of the earth. In his expressions one feels the hypocrisy of the heretic, the obsession of the sick, and, above all, the remorse of a conscience that does not silence.
In subsequent letters, according to the circumstances, he even attacked the power, abandoning his status as POOR PULGA, to become a FURIOUS TIGER, intending to assault the Church and society, and to destroy and crush. Let us go through Luther's life in this new phase.

 

1. THE DESPERATE

Over his boiling head Luther felt the excommunication of the Church grief. As stated above, he sensed, first of all, that it was urgent for him to destroy in public opinion the fear of that official and supreme punishment of authority. In order to achieve this, he began to preach openly against the aforementioned penalty, presenting it, not as fearsome, but proclaiming it desirable. “Such punishment,” he exclaimed, “does not separate from the communion of Christians; but it is of great merit before God that he blesses doubly that he that passeth away in this unrighteous curse. However, despite bravado of this size, Luther suffered from terrible unrest.
The universities of Leuven and Cologne have pleaded against him while the lawsuit is underway. Dr. Eck had gathered the Leipzig discussion papers with other evidence of heresies, and brought it all to Rome. Exasperated, Luther then wrote an incendiary pamphlet, addressed to the German nobility, dealing with the improvements of the Christian state. In furious terms he expounded how, in his view, the papacy sinned against the German nation and against the Church. In 25 chapters he has dealt with the subject of ecclesiastical abuse, already by others pointed out more calmly and thoughtfully.
After all, "it was simple plagiarism." At the end of it, boiling with hatred and thirsting for vengeance, he raised his eyes to heaven and exclaimed, "O Christ my Lord, look down to the earth, make the last day dawn and destroy the evil nest of Rome." The declaration of war was launched, which was intended to bring the German people back to the Church of Christ. ------------- (*) - Gravamine: Onus Ecclesiae; Perstinger: From plankton Ecclesiae; Of ruin Ecclesiae, etc ...

 

2. NEW HERETIC DOCTRINES

Soon Luther began to fabricate a DOCTRINAL treaty of his "reformation," justifying that just as the Jews had once been freed from slavery by Moses, he would then deliver the Christian peoples from Babylonian bondage. The new libel was titled: “From Babylonian Slavery”; In this exhibition Luther completely liquidated the Pope, the hierarchy and the visible Church.
Luther reduced the sacraments to three: baptism, confession, and supper, considering the latter two to be grotesque, not binding. Speaking of the Eucharist, he taught that in the Holy Host not only appearances remained, but even the very substance of bread, so that there is not exactly the transubstantiation or change of the substance of bread in the body of Jesus Christ, as the Church teaches. but there is a kind of “empanation” by virtue of which the substance of the body of Our Lord is present in the consecrated host, together with the substance of bread, which could be called consubstantiation or two substances in one appearance. According to the new doctrine, Holy Mass is no longer a sacrifice; The right to impose commandments or make vows is opposed to ecclesiastical freedom; celibacy must disappear and the Church, with its prescriptions on marriage, becomes guilty of adultery.
The content of this new Gospel can be summed up in these words of the reformer: “Neither the Pope, nor the Bishop, nor any man has the right to impose on a Christian a single bond, without his consent”. speaking brings complete destruction of all authority, anarchy in government and rebellion in the people. Luther no longer reasons. It is a miserly possession or, rather, an unbalanced one.

 

3. THE CONDEMNATION BULLET

It was time to act, because there was no hope of pacification anymore. Luther wanted the war. At the end of April 1520 a Commission of Cardinals and theologian, chaired by Pope Leo X, drafted the Condemnation Bull, published on June 15 of the same year. It is the label: EXURGE, DOMINE, composed of three parts; the first dealing with ERRORS; the second from the WRITTEN and the third from the excommunicated PERSON.
In 41 assertions the errors of the heretic concerning the justification and authority of the Church were understood. On the heretical writings it was stated that they should be burned wherever they had been spread. As for the person of Luther, the Holy See still did not enact any punishment, wishing to give him time and opportunity to acknowledge the errors and to be able to retract them. The pontiff's warning is paternal and conciliatory; It is for no reason that Protestants complain against the harshness of this Bull's tone.
Here is what Leo X said in this document: “Taking as an example the will of God who does not want the sinner's death but to be converted and live, we want to forget all the insults cast upon us and against the Apostolic See. We are determined to exercise as much indulgence as possible, and while it is up to us, we will take it in such a way that the guilty one arises, converts from the heart, and portrays the errors indicated, and that, returning to the heart of the Church, such is the prodigal of the Gospel, may we receive it with joy. We therefore warn the guilty and his supporters wholeheartedly for the love and mercy of our Lord God and the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom humanity has been redeemed and the Church confirmed, and we conjure them to give up disturbing the peace, unity and truth of the Church through the perverse errors that are spreading. "By being obedient, they will find in us abundant fatherly love, and open arms for generosity and meekness."
What a distance does not go between this calm, thoughtful, paternal language of the Head of the Church, and the spiteful, hated, bloodthirsty cries of the rebel monk! Some expressions taken from Holy Scripture and still others in use at that time are not just common formulas of similar cases, but not the expression of the Pope's feelings. The promulgation of this Bull was entrusted to Dr. Eck, the well-known resolute opponent of Luther's innovations.
Such a choice pleased Catholics, but it angered supporters of error who saw this as a kind of provocation. Dr. Eck found it difficult to enact it due to the state of irritation among the people of his country. Several universities, such as Leipzig, Wittemberg, Erfurt and Vienna, promulgated the Bull after a long delay. Several bishops, fearing opposition, did not publish it immediately.
Such delay and fear show us that a good number of Catholics and even authorities did not yet understand the danger posed by the new teachings and the apostate friar's revolts. Believing to pacify their temper by patience, they let error sink into the minds of the people who, without listening to contrary voices, embraced the error as if it were the truth, thus becoming Protestant without realizing it.

 

4. The insults of LUTERO

Luther could not expect protection from Emperor Charles V, who was too religious to passport to an enemy of the Church, but he could count on Prince Frederick of Saxe to protect him if excommunication struck him. At first she pretended not to believe in the Bull and spread the rumor that she was Dr. Eck's arrangement and work; As a result, he had intended to insult the Pope in the person of Eck, and had to do so directly. “It's Bull and Eck's lies,” he said. It was, however, useless for a long time to sustain this pretense, and, no longer able to contain his hatred, he expressed it in a new writing: "Against the Bull of Antichrist" (*) published in November 1520.
In this new pasquim tells the heretic that his doctrine is the only true one, and therefore this Bull intends to compel him to deny God and worship the devil. "The Pope and the Cardinals, he says, must prove their claims, otherwise I will be coerced into considering the Holy See as the seat of the Antichrist, condemning it and delivering it to Satan, with this Bull and all its decrees."
The pseudo-reformer looks more like a possession than a balanced man. Addressing the Emperor, he exclaims, “Where are you, great emperor, where are you, Christian kings? Have you consecrated yourselves by Baptism, and can you withstand these infernal voices of Antichrist? ”
As for the bull, he writes: “All true Christians must trample it and expel, by sulfur and fire, the Roman Antichrist and Dr. Eck. His Apostle ”This same year he reprinted another parson:“ On Freedom in Christianity ”, from which he sent a copy to the Holy Father Leo X, accompanied by a letter, which reads the following insults, more worthy of an imbalance than of a reformer: “The Roman Church is a horrendous Sodom and Babylon; a lair of murderers above all lairs; a bandit house above all bandits; a center and a land of sin and death and perdition, to the point that it is impossible to think that it can rise in wickedness even with the coming of Antichrist himself. HOWEVER, O HOLY FATHER, THERE ARE THERE, LIKE A LAMB IN THE WOLF ”The poor heretic seeks to cover up the Pope's voice by his anger, his invectives and his insults, appearing like a drunk, shouting, gesturing, unknowingly which side to turn to find some peace and quiet. The demon seemed to have entered his body and soul. ----------------- (*) -
This word becomes an obsession for Luther, who with it targets the person of Leo X less than the papal power in general and the whole hierarchy.

 

5. The excommunication of LUTERO

Desiring to remain in public opinion and diminish the effects of the pontifical act. Just by resorting to writing and words, Luther decided to resort to a theatrical performance. He invited the University of Wittemberg to a pious and uplifting public square performance. At the appointed time, having lit a fire, appeared Luther, dressed as an Augustinian monk; Having the Bull of excommunication with him, he stretched it out over the fire, exclaiming with a loud voice, "Because you have attacked the truth of the Lord, behold, he now attacks you with fire."
With his raised hand he made a circular motion and the Bull fell into the fire, being consumed by the flames. The pious and uplifting spectacle was over. The Lutheran youth, fanatized by its heretical teacher, imitated his example, and behold, all that they could find in the crackling church disappeared in the crackling brazier: law books, ecclesiastical constitutions, theologies, prayer books, etc. This solemn ceremony, the excommunicator will later say, was done by inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Pastor IV. P. 384).
The next day, when the students exalted his heroic action, Luther was penalized for not being able to cast the Pope's throne into the same fire and added this beautiful phrase: “Whoever does not fight the papacy with all his heart cannot reach it. eternal salvation. ” (Ibid. P. 284).
Luther was condemned by the Holy See. In times past the sentence of Rome would have been immediately accepted by the empire, but in those where the revolt was like a muffled fire, about to invade the German empire, it took calm and time. The deadline has therefore passed, and the 60 days scheduled for withdrawal, or for excommunication to take effect, have expired. On January 3, 521, Pope Leo X launched a new "Docet Romanum Pontificem" Bull against Luther, declaring him publicly excommunicated. At the same time the Sovereign Pontiff, on January 18, addressed a Brief to the Emperor, asking that the Bull of excommunication be published throughout Germany, so that the revolt could be known to the people, and that the latter be warned against the errors taught.
Luther sought protection from his benefactor, Prince Frederick of Saxe, who interceded on his behalf before the Emperor, asking to be heard by the civil authority prior to the execution of the Pope's sentence. The emperor, despite himself, was compelled by the princes to heed the request, ordering Luther to appear before the Worms General Council.

 

6. TO WORMS COUNCIL

A curious fact, which could qualify as apostate obsession, is the thought of Satan persecuting him, and to whom he attributes all his setbacks: he sees demons everywhere: - a noise in the galleries of the church of Erfurt during his sermon; a few stones at Gotha during his lecture; a nuisance that prevented him from continuing his journey, all of which he considered produced by the action of the infernal powers.
Writing to his friend Spalatino, before going to Worms, Luther said, "We will go to Worms and the powers of hell and air cannot prevent this trip." So hey, on his way to Worms. Historians say that such a journey was a triumph. The supporters followed him, and wherever he went, everyone wanted to see the extraordinary man and the target of so many contradictions.
On April 16, 1521, he arrived in the city, where the ecclesiastical authorities with the princes and the Emperor were already meeting. Their spirits were high, and there was even fear of a popular uprising fomented by Luther's friends. The next day, 17, the heretic was quoted before the council (Ryksdag), to be heard. A brilliant exposition was expected from Luther, for he had publicly stated that he was resolved to "frighten and crush Satan himself," but the opposite happened. To the two questions directed at him, he answered in such a faint voice that he was only heard by those closest to him, as if he was afraid or unwell. They asked him if he was in fact the author of the writings on display there. Luther answered in the affirmative. They were later invited to condemn the errors contained therein. To this invitation answered Luther, asking for reflection and time, because he said, suddenly, he could not give a solution. They gave him twenty-four hours to think. The next day Luther appeared in his natural state of insolence and pride; He sought to defend his mistakes, attacked the authority of the Church, and declared that he could not turn back. His friends had excited and excited him at this interval, urging him to support his opinions. Seeing the monk's stubbornness and blind fanaticism, the Emperor ordered Luther to retract the next day by giving him safe conduct and assurance for 20 days, provided he did not preach or spread his writings. In the evening of the same day Luther's protectors met: Frederick of Saxe, Spalatino, and others, and decided to hide the revolt to subtract him from any eventuality of civil power or from any persecution of his adversaries. The imperial messenger, Gaspar Sturm, was to accompany Luther, leading a small troop of soldiers. Wanting the reformer to make the trip, with some friends, he dismissed the messenger, keeping only a few unarmed guards; The reason for this farewell was as follows: everything was carefully prepared for a pretended trap, which should save Luther, excite the animosity of his adherents, and shame his enemies. Passing at night through the Thuringian forests near Altestein on May 44, 1521, Luther was suddenly robbed by horsemen, taken from his car, and led by horse to Wartburg Castle near Eisenach. The next day the rumor spread that the Emperor's passport had been violated and that Luther was imprisoned and horribly mistreated; some claimed to have seen his corpse thrown into the hollow of a rock. Bad tongues naturally followed bad heads, and a thousand impressive subtitles ran through the exalted population. At this time the excommunicated apostate was quietly sheltered from all violence and leading princely lives, hidden in the old castle of Wartburg, under the pseudonym "Gentleman George."

 

7. WORMS DECISIONS

While this was happening, the State Council session in Worms was underway. Luther's stubbornness, in not wanting to be convinced of his mistakes, gave the emperor full right to issue an edict against the heretic in defense of Catholic doctrine. This act was drafted, signed by the civil authority and entrusted to the pope's representative, to be taken to Rome.
Luther's protector, Frederick of Saxe, seeing his efforts frustrated not to attend to his pupil's condemnation, withdrew from the meeting and wrote to a friend: “Not only Annas and Caiaphas are against Luther, but Pilate and Herod too. , that is, religious to civil authority (Janssen-Pastor: II. 184). This Worms edict did not produce the effect that sincere men expected of it. Many found the text somewhat harsh, incisive, so that it caused some unease among Catholics, and among Luther's sectarians a greater hatred of authority. It proclaimed Luther's excommunication, ordering him to be considered a heretic, and could no longer be welcomed, favored or protected by anyone. Anyone was required to arrest him and hand him over to the Emperor. His books were to be destroyed and punished for excommunication. The Neuremberg City Council was instructed to arrange for the execution of the judgment. Notable are the accusations against Luther set forth in this document: “By his writings,” says the edict, “Luther spreads corrupt practices: changes the number of the Sacraments, changes the law of indissolubility of marriage, insults the Pope with blunt and blasphemous words, He despises the priesthood and seeks to excite the beds to wash their hands in the blood of the priests. It teaches the lack of freedom of the human will and calls for a life without brake and without authority. It has reached the point of not retreating before the most sacred barriers, burning canonical books in public. It despises the Councils and nicknamed the Council of Constance: a synagogue of demons and their participants: antichrists and murderers. It is an enemy in monk's clothing, accumulating old and new heresies; it intends to preach the Gospel and destroys sincere faith under the pretext of restoring the true Gospel ”(Janssen. P. II. 299). As it turns out, the Imperial Council was well informed of Luther's management, and this document summarizes, in a nutshell, the main heresies of the would-be reformer. If the Edict had been well executed, perhaps the world would not have watched the sad and horrendous scenes that followed the Protestantization of Germany. Unfortunately the imperial orders did not produce the desired effect. The weakness and disunity of the government itself, the money, the fear, the self-indulgence and the sympathy for the reform of various chiefs, have delayed and in many places rendered the ordered measures unusable.

 

8. CONCLUSION

Such was the situation of the reformer, before and after being condemned. It may be argued that the poor heretic is a freak of unrivaled stubbornness and pride. Nothing could make him reason. He was obsessed with the fixed idea of ​​the hatred of Rome, which he intended to exterminate, and the idea of ​​the Bible alone, so that each could make an individual religion, independent of God and his representatives on earth. In every step of the heresiarch there is a pronounced bad faith and a desire to be applauded by the crowd. Adding to these personal dispositions of Luther the decay of the time, the hesitations of the faith, and the exaltation of the spirits in search of change, one understands the future that awaited the reformer, who, in fact, crowned his efforts. The great men, the reformers or the deformers, do not shine so much for the personal value as for the devaluation of those around them. This is what the personal proverb expresses very well: in the kingdom of the blind who has an eye is king. Thus, in a time of decay, when there is a lack of vigor, of energy, of enthusiasm, when a more decisive and courageous individual appears than the others immediately becomes the center of a new constellation, around which the eyes and the eyes gravitate. sympathies. So it was with Luther, a proud poor man who, feeling his inferiority in everything, wanted to take advantage of the decay that surrounded him to rise. Not finding in itself a means to effect this wish, it used revolutionary insurrection, speech and punishment to speak out in public and gain celebrity. Such is the Protestant superman that lies ahead. Simply a super revolutionary.

 

CHAPTER VI

LUTERO IN WARTBURG


We are witnessing a new stage in the life of the unhappy and obstinate father of the Protestant sects. Like a menacing, ominous meteor, he appeared swiftly in the church's firmament, then disappeared into hiding, from where he will continue, by his writings, to foment hatred, disorder, and spread his monstrous errors throughout the world. As for his private life at Wartburg Castle, a place sanctified by the heroic virtues of St. Elizabeth, Luther, in person describes it in a letter to his friend Melanchton on July 13, 1521: "Here I am idle, insensitive and hardened." unfortunately, praying little and not caring about the Church of God, because the great ardor of my untamed flesh burns me ("quia carnis meae indomitae uror magnis ignibus"). In a word: I who should be fervent in spirit, I feel in my flesh lust, laziness, idleness, drowsiness "(De Wette II, 22). In this solitude, he goes on, I drown in sin ("peccatis immergor in ac solitudine") "(De Wette II, p.26). So he is lonely in Wartburg who will later call his" Patmos "envoy. After longing to hover above all ... he fell into the mire of all vices, as he himself acknowledged. It is no longer the proud Luther who presents himself to us, but the Luther crápula "ego otiosus hic et crapulosus thirst tota die ”(by Wette II. 6) The ten-month stay at Wartburg Castle is a black page in the life of the misguided wretch.

 

1. THE SUCCESSFUL MISSION OF LUTERO

Let's look at the monk in the castle where he had taken refuge. Secluded from everyone, far from the hustle and bustle of bad companions that excited him, Luther could repent and retreat, if he were still able, to recount in spirit the sad and disastrous events of which he was the cause. This, unfortunately, did not happen or rather, only in its first days of exile. In the slow, monotonous hours that followed, he heard at first a piercing voice in himself, such the shrill echo of the crows and owls that surrounded the Castle tower and passed before his bedroom window. "How many times," he declares himself, "my heart trembled with horror, casting this bitter thought into my face; only do you want to be wise? Then all the others will be wrong? And they will have been in error for so many centuries. "What will become of you if you are wrong, dragging so many people into error and eternal perdition?" (Works Lut. Weimar, VIII. 411).
Luther did not have the sincerity or nobility of sentiments of a Saint Augustine to convert, to condemn his mistakes and to become a Seraphim of the master of God, who reflected, under the motion of grace, on the comforting words: “quod isti e istae, cur non ego? ”(what could these and these accomplish, why can't I do it too?) ... Luther was on the dangerous slope of the revolt, descending to the bottom of the abyss ... and the obsessed He could not see anything else but the nagging idea of ​​haunting him like an evil spirit: "ONLY THE BIBLE AND ONLY FAITH." The struggle was terrible between the voice of conscience and the impulses of pride. Instead of being in favor of the former, he forced silence. “I could only, with the most expressive texts of Scripture,” he writes, “convince my conscience that it was permitted to resist the Pope by passing him as antichrist, and to regard the Bishops as the apostles of the antichrist, and the universities as The pride soon drowned out the remorse of a troubled soul, persuading him to think he was invested with a divine mission to regain the freedom of Christianity, enslaved by the Catholic Church. It is a true obsession. Did he really persuade himself to have a purpose to accomplish in this world? ... It is possible, for this fact occurs, both in wicked men and among holy persons. Attila called herself and it was for real: the scourge of God. Alexander the Great, Caesar, and Napoleon were convinced that they had been called by God to conquer the world. Muhammad, the hysteric, with whom Luther the possessed has many similarities, considered himself a "prophet of God," sent to replace existing religions with another.
It is therefore permissible that the monk, endowed with an ardent imagination, a turbulent genius, activity, dominated by nerves, guided by pride and confidence in his personal worth, went so far as to say, “ sent from God ”to root out the abuses of his day and promulgate the free interpretation of the Gospel. If the fact cannot be positively established, because history tells us of his own doubts about it, it is permissible, however, to think that in moments of agitation he was able to stifle the voice of conscience, convincing himself of the reality of his liberating mission, which became for him a kind of hallucination.

 

2. DEVIL APPEARANCES

Two points stand out in Luther's stay at Wartburg Castle: his idea of ​​the devil and the great temptations he suffered. In his letters at every step he refers to his relations with the devil while there.
Not only does he say that he heard the demon there, in the tremendous noise that seemed to haunt him day and night, but claims to have seen him, under the sensitive appearance of a black dog, inside his room ...
From this terrible spectacle Luther will give us an idea later in his tavern conversations: "When I was on my Patmos," he says, "I had sealed a sack of hazelnuts in a cupboard. One night I had just laid me down." a hellish noise began in these nines which, one by one, were thrown hard against the ceiling beams, I felt the bed jerk, and I heard a noise on the stairs, as if throwing down a great many vessels. , the ladder had been removed, so that no one could go up to my room, being fastened to the wall with an iron chain "(Wette Erl. 59 p.340), (Fact told by the reformer himself in Eisleben in 1546). The meeting of the black dog took place under strange circumstances: the animal would have sought a place on Luther's bed, which would have rightfully removed him from the room, throwing him out the window without the slightest whining from the animal. It was, it seems, a meek and harmless little devil who let himself be thrown out like this. Nothing more could be found of the dog after the fall, not even traces. Luther was sure it was a devil, in flesh, fur, and bone (Köstlin-Karveran I. 440, 1903). They also refer that one day the devil appeared to him in person, perhaps to congratulate him for his work, all for the benefit of Satan; on this occasion, seized with horror and fear in a fit of rage, Luther would have thrown an inkwell at the demon. The paint did not smudge the devil's hood, but it was the container shattered against the wall, where the distinctive signs of its contents lay - a large black spot. Coburg and others speak of this, but Luther, the only one who could assert the reality of the fact, seems, never referred to him. What is true about all this? It is hard to say. However, in view of Luther's dispositions and abnormal state, it is believable to be nothing but nervous exaltation, fantasy, superstition. In any case, Luther saw demons everywhere. In the pamphlet against the Duke of Brunswick, the demon was honored to be named 146 times; in the 4-line book of councils Luther speaks 15 times about devils. Reform opponents have a “satanized, over-satanized heart.” Luther is proud of the fact that he never dissatisfied the prince of darkness who always accompanies him. Such a sick disposition, heightened by the isolation in which he lived, as by the recollection of recent events. of his excommunication by the Pope, of the condemnation by the Worms Edict, of the dangers that threatened him, of the uncertainty of the future, all of which must necessarily increase the excess tension of the nerves and exalt the burning imagination. right to an apparition of the spirit of darkness to congratulate him on the diabolical work of revolt he was doing in the world, and on the perdition of thousands of souls that such a company would bring on. If the devil did not appear to him, it is not because lacked the will, but only because God did not allow it.

 

3. Impure Temptations

What will be read is almost only the testimony of the “reformer” himself. He writes to Melanchton: "I am bodily healthy and well treated, but temptations and sin do not leave me alone" (Letters II.189). "Believe me, in this dreadful loneliness, I am subject to the temptations of a thousand demons ... It is much easier to fight against men who are devils in the flesh than against the powers of the air-dwelling militia" (Eph. VI. 12). ). I fall many times, but the hand of the Lord raises me again! (Letter III.240. A. Gerbal).
It is then that he speaks to Melanchton the famous saying: PECA FORTITER, CREDE FORTIUS - (sins strongly, but believes even more strongly). It is here, above all, in the idleness of his banishment, that Luther begins to indulge in the shameful passions of lust, as his intimate correspondence attests. In 1522 he wrote to his friend Spalatino the most shameful and shameful letter you can imagine reading: "I am a famous flirt ...
I marvel that writing so many times about marriage, et misceor feminis, you have not yet become a woman and have married one of them. ” "However, if you want my example, you have this: I've had three wives at the same time, and I loved them so badly that I lost two of them, who went looking for other husbands." "As for you, you are a soft lover, not even having the courage to be the husband of one" (De Wette II. 646). I ask a man of common sense; is this the language of a reformer, or is it not? the correspondence of a bohemian vulgar, a happy widower? ”Father Leonel Franca made this judicious remark: (“ The Church, the Reformation, and Civilization ”L. II. C. I).“ Rarely is the licentious life unaccompanied by weathering table excesses.
In Luther the fever of carnal lust was stimulated by drunkenness and scapula. In drinking, he says, I don't want others to compete with me. ” He will later write to his Catherine: “I am eating like a bohemian and drinking like a German, praise God!”
In 1534 he wrote: “Yesterday I drank badly and then I was forced to sing; I drank badly, and I feel it a lot. How I wish I had drunk well, thinking of what good wine and good beer I have at home, and one more beautiful woman ”(De Wette IV. 553). He wrote: “Here I spend all day in idleness and debauchery” (Ego otiosus hic et crapulosus thirst tota die) (De Wette II. 6). The night the reformer, with the company of others, arrived in Erfurt (Oct. 19, 1522)... "He did nothing but drink and shout, as usual," writes Melanchton present at the scene. harming your health ”. The reason for these copious and dazzling libations is confessed by Luther himself in a letter to his friend Jerome Weller: "When the devil shakes you with thought," he says, "talk to friends, drink more, play, play, or occupy." From time to time one should drink more abundantly, play games, have fun, and even do some sin in hatred and lust for the devil, so as not to disturb one's conscience with trifles. The devil said to you, "Don't drink, answer him," That is why you forbid me, that I will drink, and in the name of Jesus Christ I will drink more abundantly.
Why think that I drink this much more broadly, I cava more freely, I feast more often, but to vex and ridicule the demon that wants to vex and ridicule me? ”“ ALL DECALOGUE SHOULD GET OUT OF THE EYES AND FROM THE SOUL, to us so persecuted and harassed by the devil ”(De Wette IV. 188). Here is Luther in the reality of his ideas and his life ... and far from being the mystical “reformer” that the Protestants invented, his head crowned with laurel, he has hidden his feet that crawl in the filthiest mud of vice and evil. rot. It's sad to write such things ...
Unfortunately, all of this is true. It is even more pitiful to hide them by believing that such a man is a messenger of God to restore the purity of the Gospel and Christian morals. There may be abuse in the members of the Catholic Church, but it has never been, nor will it be greater than the alleged reformer of Catholicism. Admitting Luther's divine mission is the same as accepting that God has chosen the mud to purify the mud; immorality to correct human misery; drunkenness and intemperance to overcome the defects of men.

 

4. EVANGELICAL FREEDOM

We already know Luther's moral life, which he himself attributed to the devil, and may therefore call it devilish. Let's not think, however, that Luther would sleep all day. His hot, boisterous temperament gave him no rest, and despite his libertine and gastronomic life, he was able to study and write, continuing his attacks on the Church and his subversive propaganda. His friends from Wittemberg secretly sent him the books and writings he started to carry them out. His main concern was to finalize interrupted treatises, dealing with the Magnificat, the commentary on the psalms, as well as finishing some incendiary pamphlets. Then he began to translate the New Testament, finishing it shortly. From an exegetical point of view, this translation may qualify as a true misery, either by its heretical ideas or by the weakness of its comments; though all German literati agree that language reads smooth and harmonious. This New Testament, reviewed by Melanchton, was published in 1522. It is the only breath work produced by Luther in Wartburg. Meanwhile, the ideas launched by the heretic, in the fertile ground of the corruption of the time, began to germinate and produce their fruits. The first results, as only happened in times of moral decay like this, had as their main aim the Denial of Chastity. Only thinking of women and weddings came to mind.
Luther himself was horrified by the matchmaking propaganda wrought by his doctrine and his example. Here's what he writes: “What more dangerous thing can there be than to excite this multitude of celibates into marriage, taking such uncertain and scarce biblical passages as their support? The consequences will be more disturbed than now. I wished I had the celibates all freedom; but I do not know yet how to prove it. ”(Correspond. III. 218. Aug. 1521. His friends Bartholomew Feldkirch, Carlostadt, and Melanchton agreed that the votes should be rejected and annulled. He did not have the courage to so openly contradict the Bible.However, he is in the affirmative ... he will look for him, until he finds any text that can be adapted to his idea.
For him evangelical freedom is the central principle of all religious conceptions, so that everything must bow to this basic postulate by virtue of which he could, five weeks later, write to Melanchton these words: contrary to freedom, is free from them. This rule includes those who have vowed to seek salvation or justification. But most religious vowed this intention. Therefore it is quite clear that they are wicked, sacrilegious, and opposed to the Gospel; therefore all must be set free and the curse removed from them ”(Correspond. IIII, 224. Sept. 1521). Luther was a monk, had vowed; behold it with the means of shaking the yoke.
And such a course paved the way for a general renegation of vows by all monks and religious; it was the debauchery available to all, and the license for priests and nuns to embrace marital life, despite the biblical text that so disturbed Luther: “Make vows to the Lord your God, and do them” (Psalm 75:12). This is how the Bible expresses itself. Luther, instead, by virtue of evangelical freedom, otherwise interprets the above: DO NOT VOTE FOR GOD, AND HAVE DONE THEM, NOT FULFILLED THEM. This is the new reformation, the new Gospel of Luther: evangelical freedom.
Catholic morality taught that there was no freedom to do evil; The reformer, however, wants to change everything and legislates that freedom is complete, especially for doing what is not good. In fact, the new discovery of the false friar soon brought to light a new writing on religious vows. Such a booklet was greatly appreciated by sincere contemporaries: Gaspar Dietenberger, refuted it, wrote: “It would almost be thought that such a book, full of ideas of revenge, was written by a drunkard, or rather by a spirit out of hell". John Dietenberger, for his part, appreciated it thus: “It is a book full of lies, blasphemies, and insults” (Grisar I. 398, note 4). What is certain is that such a pamphlet was a new seed coming out on the proper ground, exalting many spirits, disturbing them, and throwing them into the broad road of debauchery. In this way, chastity, so advised by Jesus Christ, was abolished by the alleged reformer and purifier of Christianity. What a complete divergence is not to be seen between the divine model of purity, the divine Savior, proclaiming the pure in heart blessed, and the libertine and gastronomist of Wittemberg, anathematizing purity and declaring happy the debauchers of life.
What a contrast between them! ... Yet it is amazing to see so many people and even whole nations abandon their belief in the Church founded by Christ to listen to Luther's insights.

 

5. WARTBURG EXIT

Luther had sown the seed of revolt that was to soon grow. "He who sows wind collects storms." And these were arming, announcing themselves threatening. The insurgents against the Catholic Church called for the intervention of Frederick de Saxe, Luther's protector, so that he might give reform a strong hand, destroy the convents, bury the Mass and compel the people to adopt the new Lutheran Gospel. from the beginning: force precedes law. The prince hesitated and had no courage to launch himself into such a dangerous enterprise.
But fanaticism is a real nerve disorder; No more reasoning, it is an OBSESSION that wants to reach the end, no matter what. Informed of all, Luther could no longer stand his loneliness of Wartburg; more fanatical than those he had fanatized, he intended to strike a definite blow. He secretly left his hiding place and headed for Wittemberg to find out everything. He found the ground ill-prepared and, undercover, disguised as a knight, returned to the old castle, where he wrote a new booklet entitled "Faithful Warning", addressed to all Christians, asking them to stop the revolution that was under way. Warp It was too late. The germ of rebellion he launched was blossoming and would produce disastrous results. The peace request had no effect.
Luther would be coerced into recognizing that it is easier to preach revolt in the peaceful than to obtain the pacification of the rebels. Wittemberg was on the warpath. Carlostadt, who had been such a sad figure in Leipzig, wanted to replace Luther, also assuming the air of reformer. Applying then the master's theories, he publicly proclaimed that marriage should be prescribed to all ministers of the Gospel, while introducing the Supper in place of the Roman mass. On Christmas Day was the news performed for the first time. Carlostadt celebrated supper in the parish church with bread and wine distributed to all present; The following January the new evangelical chief entered the temple solemnly, beside the chosen woman whom he married, according to evangelical freedom. The Wittemberg friars soon adopted the new regime; they burned the altars and the images of saints, publicly introduced the reformation, and began to marry, following Carlostadt's example. Part of the population applauded, while another was horrified at the sight of such shamelessness.
The riots increased to the point of disquiet to the government, which made a strict complaint to the Bishops and Frederick de Saxe, ordering them to imprison and punish the disturbers of religious order and peace. Luther, who had hitherto watched the movement, found the moment unlucky to become important.
For if, on the one hand, it feared to be considered coward by the people, fleeing, after setting fire to the world and fearing the consequences of the fire, on the other, it saw its reform work threatened. Now was the time to speak up. He soon saw that it was impossible for bishops and authorities to contain the revolt, widespread as it was. It was necessary to do something urgent. It was his claim. The 1st. From March he left the refuge of Wartburg, heading for Borna, a city south of Leipzig. That is why he wrote to Frederick de Saxe, begging him for protection and putting himself at his disposal in the task of pacifying the people. On March 6 Luther, disguised as Knight George, Wittemberg entered, put on his cassock again, shaved his beard, and the following Sunday appeared in the Augustinian church, to begin a peaceful preaching from the pulpit. Whatever it cost, he wanted to stop the exalted population and restore peace. Otherwise, he knew, his cause would be lost.

 

6. Hypocritical Figure

Luther would feign a retreat in order to please Prince Frederick of Saxe and the government that considered him the maker of the revolution underway. The heretic did not hesitate ... Just as he knew how to blaspheme and slander for hatred, he was also adept at being a hypocrite and a diplomat. He gave eight conferences to declare the revolution opposed to evangelical freedom, saying he was saddened to see the people rush events rather than being patient and calm. “I followed,” he exclaimed, “I have never been unsuccessful in my business; in fact, I am the first to whom God has entrusted the mission and the task of preaching this doctrine to you ”.
Luther's popular and enthusiastic eloquence triumphed, and Wittemberg was faithful to him; Carlostadt was forced to retreat and flee, until in 1541 the plague ended his exalted life in the city of Bazel. Under Luther's direction, the Wittemberg church was repaired. Decorated as it was before, the friars appeared again, clothed with the holy vestments, to preside over and perform the offices, while liturgical hymns rang out. During the Mass the host was again raised and shown to the people. Outwardly, nothing had altered the Holy Sacrifice. Such an organization, however, was merely a disguise, designed to pacify the mood and complete the reform. Luther suppressed in the prayers of the Mass everything that impressed on him the character of Sacrifice, since he did not admit it to be the bloodless continuation of Calvary's Sacrifice, simply considering it a reminder. Cochleus, his assistant in heresy, and several others did not accept these fictitious ceremonies because they condemned such a fake demonstration. The reformer replied that the Sacrament of the Eucharist should not be withdrawn before the PURE GOSPEL (in the Lutheran sense) was well understood. The obligation imposed by the Catholic Church on its ministers, that they should utter the words of the Canon in a thin voice, facilitated the acts of new worship, without the people noticing the difference between the new and the old ceremonies. Luther could quite rightly say: “Thank God, our churches, in neutral things, are organized in such a way that a layman, whether French or Spanish, who does not understand our preaching, upon seeing ours, ours. On the altar, our garments, when we hear our organs and our bells, must confess to attending a true papal mass ”(W.Erl. l55.300). The ignorant people did not notice the difference between the two rites, nor did they notice the reformation, so that later Luther could boast of having accomplished what was almost impossible in the beginning: abolishing the Mass that had taken such deep roots in the hearts of men. And in a tone of joy he exclaimed, "May God let me die a natural death, and will have deceived the Papists, who could not have burned alive the one who thus destroyed their Mass" (Coll. Ed. Bindseil, 122). This total subversion of the Catholic Mass, from which Luther suppressed the eucharistic sacrifice, and retained only simple, meaningless and worthless prayers, because disconnected from it, after having been solemnly baptized by Luther under the name "German Mass", was introduced. in Wittemberg in the year 1523. Only three years later was the Latin language replaced by German.

7. CONCLUSION

Luther's stay in the castle of Wartburg is one of the pages of the story of his life that best discovers us and conveys the feelings of the turbulent spirit, the state of the addictive heart, and the will to the evil of the poor and unfortunate renegade. In the exaltation of the world and the intoxication of success the wise man can sometimes go astray for lack of reflection; but when found solitary in the placid isolation, a sensible person reflects, compares, and realizes the wrongness of his mistakes.
With Luther, however, none of this happened. Condemned by the civil authority as disturbing public order; excommunicated by the Church as a heretic; humiliated in public discussions, where he was convinced of bad faith and ignorance; exiled from society by the Government; retreated for protection in a lonely castle, Luther, after a brief hesitation, remained the same exalted man, spiteful, stubborn in his ideas, fanatic in his revolt. Worse, he added to the errors of his mind the shameful passions and excesses of all sorts.
It was truly an unfortunate, a fallen, a common communist, as we would say today. And after ten months of such a life, when it was to be expected, he was repentant and transformed, he is reappearing in public, not to repair the evil, but to cover it for a moment through the mask of hypocrisy under which continues his evil work of hatred and destruction. And then he insults, vituperates, and drags the name of God into the mud, ascribing it all to the devilish influence, while at the same time nurturing himself and expressing the conviction of being a messenger from heaven to straighten the world. Such a contrast cannot well be born to stand in a balanced spirit, but only in an abnormal and obsessed one like it.
This idea was clearly expressed in his letter to his protector Frederico de Saxe when he told him of his plan to leave Wartburg to return to Wittemberg. “Your Highness may not know it, but know that I do not receive the Gospel from the hands of men, but only from heaven, from Our Lord Jesus Christ, and that I can therefore call myself, as I will do now. Apostle and Evangelist ”(Correspond. III. 296, March 5, 1522). Not surprisingly, Luther came to such a claim. The pride that had characterized him from the beginning, and the imbalance of his mentality in the face of the success and popularity that had earned him the enthusiasm and fiery eloquence, should give rise to the idea that he was a SENDER OF GOD.
When he was both cheered by the multitude and fought by the authority of the Church, he had two ways left before him: either to retreat or to revolt; in other words: either to acknowledge mistakes, or to assign oneself a divine mission. In the latter, he felt that too much pride did not allow him to humble himself, as he did not sincerely believe in such a mission. The suggestion of the result achieved, the applause received, infiltrated in his proud spirit the possibility of the company, and, finally, the probability of it. Luther became a docile plaything in the hands of Satan, who used him as an instrument to divide the Church of Christ and lose souls whose lack of faith reduced them to rotten fruits of the great Catholic tree - EX FRUCTIBUS EORUM COGNOCETIS EOS (Matthew 7, 80)

 

CHAPTER VII BLOOD AND MUD

Much more pitiful than the earlier periods - since all speckled with blood and stained with mud - is this new block of Luther's existence that we will go through. So far we have been following, step by step, the state of revolt, the decay of the misplaced mischief, at first within the narrow confines of the convent, then at the university, after all, even in Wartburg and Wittemberg. So far we have seen him sowing the seed; Let us now see the result of the sowing of evil and its instigations against the Church. The reformer continued his work of apparent pacification, but under the guise of hypocrisy he was steadying his task of destruction and revolt. Pope Leo X had recently died, succeeding him on the throne of Hadrian VI, in the government of the Church. St. Peter's new successor, anxious to paralyze the situation in Germany, soon considered meeting a General Council the following year in 1523. The instances of Hadrian VI could not reach correspondence because of general distrust, only getting the promise - not executed - to bury Luther new attacks and reforms until the conciliar meeting was held. These guarantees were pure falsehood, for Luther continued without interruption to direct his attacks against the Church and, on the other hand, the celebration of the Council did not take place on the occasion of the Pope's death in 1523. His successor , Clement VII, abandoned the plan that became unrealizable due to the war between France and the Emperor.
It is in this atmosphere of doubt, uncertainty, and discredit, that the new epoch of Luther's life opens, that we begin to see.

 

1. THE CAMPONES WAR

Already in the course of recent years, several peasant upheavals had been recorded; however, being local movements, it was possible to immediately suppress them. Luther's subversive innuendos and incendiary leaflets had prepared this revolutionary movement, widespread uprising in several provinces of Germany. The pretensions of the upheavals differed in their details. The Swabian peasants had drafted a proclamation in twelve articles, demanding for them the right to elect and depose parish priests, publicly disseminate the reform, obtain exemption from various taxes and requirements from the Empire. Others, directed by Helferich, presented thirty articles, almost entirely collected in Luther's books, to the point of the 18th. Article to swear enmity to all who did not adhere to the reformer. The Rhineland peasants demanded freedom for all revolutionaries held by the government.
The rebellion of the Rednecks thus became a social-religious movement, whose orientation was subject to the ideas and impulses of the all-knowing master by his judgment and good pleasure. The apostate, playing with the fate of the country, felt it was the right time to take advantage of the popular discontent and the hesitation of the rulers, to cast discord among themselves, and to draw to themselves the fighting forces. He therefore sought to please the parties by rebuking the princes before them, as their correspondence at the time shows.
The revolt began in the summer of 1524s in Hegau, and soon afterwards spread to various parts of Germany (Swabia, Alsace, Palatinate, etc.), leaving Bavaria alone, thanks to tact and government energy. In the spring of 1525, after arousing the peasants, the reformer urged them to peace, censoring the twelve articles, but his word, continually in contradiction, was echoed, all the while accusing the princes of intolerable exactions. This is a new cause for exasperation for the rebels' spirits. The fighting did not cease, therefore, and more than 1,000 castles and monasteries were razed, and it was necessary to use armed force to stop the rebels. The reaction of the princes then became decided, and about 50,000 peasants fell victims of the struggle under the arms of the rebels.
In his writing "against the rapacious bands of peasants," Luther urged the princes to kill the farmers like DOGS DAMAGED. The advice was followed everywhere, so that the upheaval was not mastered until 1525, after true massacres, without mercy and without judgment.
His opinion, moreover, about the inhabitants of the camps was no more favorable. Hear it: “The peasants did not want to hear anything; therefore it was necessary to open their ears with shotgun bullets so that their heads would fly through the air ”(Grisar v. Lther vol.lp715. Ed. 7912). “I don't want to know anything about mercy,” he says, “as I have written, I still write: no one should pity the stubborn, obsessed, blind peasants, but beat them with ropes, sticks, and scythes, as they do with angry dogs. “They are, of course, rebellious, thieves, murderers, and blasphemers, so there is none among them who has not deserved death ten times without compassion. You understand what is behind this population; the donkey wants a stick, and this people wants to be ruled by force ... ”And the furious hypocrite concludes by stating the reason for the revolt,“ the devil is aiming, ”he declares, destroying the whole of Germany, because there is no other way to implant the Gospel!". It also makes this beautiful appreciation of the people. “Rednecks remain rednecks; do them whatever you like, they have a crooked face, nose, and eyes ”(Schlaginhaufen Leipzig, 1888, p. 125).
It is understood that, after these changes of opinion, the workers lost their esteem towards the one who betrayed them so vilely. Luther felt this contempt and feared popular revenge. In 1530 he did not have the courage to visit his sick father and wrote: “I do not want to tempt God by exposing myself to danger, for you know how much you have despised me, lords and peasants” (Corresp. VII .. 230 to Hans Luther).

 

2. LUTERO AND THE PEOPLE

After these scenes, some of them bloody and inhuman, let us look briefly at Luther's letters and pamphlets, to see closely the infamy of the would-be reformer, arousing the people against authority and authority against the people, for the intended purpose. In a sermon he suggests how the people should be treated in these gentle terms: “Because God has given the law, and no one observes it, he has instituted, as a supplement, the lords of the rod, the conductors, and the punishers. Thus Scripture, by similarity, gives the function of lawgivers: they must be like men who lead mules; it is constantly necessary to subdue and whip them; otherwise they will not walk. So too are lawmakers to lead, beat, choke, burn, slay and destroy the vulgar ”(Erlangen ed. XV. 2 p.276).
Luther's new gospel bears, on more than one point, a striking resemblance to old Roman paganism. The reformer was worse than Herod in his reflection on the poor slaughterers in the revolution, for the fate of which he had twice been responsible. Noted Protestant historians frankly confess that he was the immediate cause of revolt in the name of the new Gospel. Not satisfied with the defeat of the poor peasants, however, he encouraged the princes to slaughter. This is what, years later, the bloodthirsty reformer had the courage to exclaim: “I, Martin Luther, in the rebellion, killed all the bourgeois, for it was I who ordered them to be put to death. All his blood is on my head; but I left him with God our Lord, because he commanded me to do so ”(Tischredden Erlangen ed. Vol.69, p.284).
It is easy to understand how Luther, who lacked dignity and pride, morals and thoughtfulness, went to such extremes. At first he was in favor of the princes in whom he had hoped to destroy the Catholic Church by forcibly imposing its reform on the people if it did not willingly accept it. When he found himself frustrated in his hopes, he turned to the people, thinking that the same effect could be produced by a popular movement. This end, however, was disastrous and consequently led to the farmers' revolt. It was not carnage and destruction that made him turn against the people, but revenge for not wanting to accept his new Gospel, as he understood it. The angry people preferred to follow Luther's EXAMPLE, not his COUNCILS, and wanted to interpret the scriptures for themselves as the reformer did. This is what caused the apostate to be angry. It was heresy versus heresy, it was schism in its own doctrine. And that he considered it a death crime. The Lutheran princes were now also in danger. What would then be of reformation if the people overcome them? ...
Luther was frantic with rage and, turning against his own class, put all his power beside the princes. In terms of diabolical violence, he urged everyone to "slaughter, stab, and kill the peasants, publicly, secretly and in any way, like stray dogs" (Hussein: What Luther taught).

 

3. LUTERO AND THE AUTHORITY

We already know his theories about religious and civil power. Just a few excerpts from your writings on this subject. Here are his words: “It would be better if all the bishops were killed, all foundations and monasteries radically demolished, rather than the death of one believer.
The most convenient thing that could happen to them would be a powerful revolution that swept them from the face of the earth. And it would only be the object of joy, such an event ”(Weimar ed. Vol.X 2 p.3). And the rioter in increasingly furious language continues: “All who help and risk their lives, property and honor, to destroy the bishoprics and eradicate the bishops' regime, will be God's dear children and true Christians, while men who bear them will be the devil's own slaves ”(Weimar p.140)
The peasants could not interpret these words except as a declaration of WAR SANTA, and so, in fact, understood them. Words of patience were spoken by Luther only to be portrayed the next day with a storm of invective ... Likewise civil authorities were denounced as "WORST WHAT THIEVES AND OLD". "A sack of worms" - was as the emperor called it, while declaring all authority contrary to his Gospel as opposed to his heretical ideas abolished.

 

4. CHASTITY AND MARRIAGE

We have just seen Luther's outward action: He is a bloodthirsty man. What we saw is just one of the facets of your person. Let us remember what he was on the inside, judging him, in his own words, crapulous, surrendered to the pleasures of table and voluptuousness, as has been said before.
For years the reformer, in the name of evangelical liberty, had entered the path of debauchery by abolishing religious vows and inviting monks and nuns to abandon their convents, reneging on their vows, especially that of chastity, word without meaning, and aspirations without meaning. reality for the reformer. After all, he began to exalt marriage and make him believe that the Catholic Church considers all the words and deeds of married people to be mortal sins.
No Catholic has ever believed in this absurd doctrine, for nowhere is married life so highly regarded and held as holy and holy as in the Catholic Church. Appreciating the chastity of the virgin state as more excellent and spiritually more desirable than marriage life, the Church does not demean the latter, but merely repeats the positive teachings of Jesus Christ and St. Paul: “Whoever has left. .. woman ... for my name's sake, you will receive the hundredfold in this world and eternal life (St. Matthew 19,29). “He who gives his daughter in marriage is good; but who does not give it does better! (1 Cor. 7, 38).
Let us look here at the threefold change that Luther made in marriage.

FIRST IN THE CHURCH Marriage is a SACRAMENT. Luther stripped him of his sacramental character, secularizing it entirely ... giving him less value than the heinous civil contract. For him, getting married is an external thing necessarily as much as eating, drinking and sleeping (Erlangen XVI. P.519). Therefore the Reformer draws this beautiful conclusion: “As I may eat, drink, sleep, walk, ride, trade, and treat with a pagan, Jewish, Turkish, and heretical, so can I marry and remain married” (Erlangen p. 205).

Secondly , Luther, not the Church, taught that marriage was inevitably a sin. Here is his curious expression: “The marriage obligation is never performed without sin” (Weimar vol. XX. 2 p.304). This sin, which he attributes to the married, is described by him as “… differing in nothing, by their nature, adultery and fornication ”(Ibd. Vol. VIII p. 304). To complete the absurdity of his doctrine, he adds that the sin necessarily committed by married people is of no value in the mercy of God, "Since it is impossible to avoid, though we are forced to abstain from it" (ibid. P.654). It sounds like the drunkenness of a drunkard, a madman speaking without logic and not knowing what to say. Imagine: ̈ A SIN — THAT CAN'T BE AVOIDED — but it is, however, forbidden! ... Only Luther could imagine three such ridiculous and shameful contradictions.

Third , Luther considers marriage as a strict obligation, misleading on God's blessing in paradise, which he interprets as universal law: GROW AND MULTIPLY Yours, Words directed, of course, to irrational men, but not as an ORDER to every individual in particular, but to the human species which, by fecundity and expansion, must propagate and fill the earth. In this way Luther created a new commandment, opposing the words of Our Lady and St. Paul already quoted, which highly recommend virginity but do not impose this state as a precept. In a letter to Archbishop Alberto on June 2, 1525, he explains his hitherto unknown law: “It is a terrible thing for a man to be without a wife at the time of death. He must at least have the intention and resolve to marry. ” How horrible! What is a dying man to do? Just getting married in the next life, despite the master's word: “IN THE RESURRECTION, NOT MEN WILL BE WOMEN, WOMEN WILL HAVE HUSBANDS; BUT THEY WILL BE LIKE GOD'S ANGELS IN HEAVEN ”(Matthew 22:30). Luther continues: “What answer will he give to the Most High God when he asks,“ I made you a man, not to be alone, but to have a wife. Where is your wife? ”Here is Luther reforming St. Paul, who said,“ It is good that a man should not have a wife ”(1 Cor. 7: 1). He blatantly continues to state his matchmaking opinions, breaking the laws of shame: “The word of God and his work are evident: woman should be used for marriage or lust” (Erlangen. Vol. 61, p. 6)

 

5. LUTERO'S FEMINISM

Here is Luther's law: “Every man must have his wife and every woman must have her husband” (Weimar. Vol.20 p.276) He admits some exceptions, but these are made by God and are ADMIRABLE and no one can claim such a miracle. Do you now want to know how Luther, the reformer sent to God, in the Protestant concept, considers woman? Read the following topic from one of your letters: “Women's bodies are not strong, and their souls are even weaker in the ordinary sense. So you read an unimportant subject that the Lord places a savage or civilized one beside us. The woman reads half a child. One who takes a woman should consider herself as the guardian of a child ... she is similar to a CAPTURE ANIMAL (ein tolles tier). Recognize your weakness. If you don't always walk straight paths, guide your weakness. A woman remains forever a woman ”(Weimar - Vol. XV. P. 420).
Here is a small sample of your ideas on this subject. There are many other passages in his writings, but too shameful, to be quoted in public. Luther's license to the Landgrave of Hesse is known to have two women at the same time. The reformer gives him the license required, demanding secrecy, because, he says, "... the Protestant sect is poor and miserable, and needs just lawmakers" (De Wette vol. V - p. 237).
The right to possess many women was openly preached by Luther: “It is not forbidden to have men more than one woman. Today I could not forbid it ”(Erlangen vol. 33 - p. 324). “I confess,” he says, “that if a man wishes to marry many women, I cannot forbid this, for it is not opposed to S. Scripture” (Ego sane fateor me non possession prohibere, if I wanted to plures uxores velit ducere, nec repugnat sacris litteris) - (De Wette vol. II p. 459). With such principles the door of polygamy was wide open and each one, crossing it, could walk the path of animality. Hesse's Landgrave understood it very well and even better applied it: "If it is just in conscience before God," he said, "what do I care about the cursed world?" Adultery, with the consent of the husband, is also expressly sanctioned by the reformer, when marriage does not result in family. The child thus generated, he says, must be attributed to the legal husband (Weimar vol II. P. 558). Preserving an asasia is also strongly recommended to those who by vote must conform to the law of celibacy.
The mud moralist writes of marital law transgressors: “Let them secretly marry their cook” (Landerbach: Tagebuch, p. 198) To members of the Teutonic Order (secular knights) to whom celibacy was imposed by chivalry law of that time, and who were thinking of asking the Council for its dispensation (which they were allowed, because they were secular), he wrote thus: “I would rather trust the grace of God with respect to him who has two or three concubines than to trust him who has one. legal wife with the consent of the Council ”(Weimar. Vol. XII p.237) When the apostate says of the wife who refuses her obligation, it is shameful to quote the words of the moralistic flame. He writes: “If the woman does not want us, let the maid come. The husband only has to let Vashti go and take Esther, like King Ahasuerus ”(Ibid. Vol. X. p.290)“ And if the wife complains, the husband must answer the admonition: Go to the devil ”(Ibid. Vol III, P. 222). Such passages abound in the writers of the reformer. Although repellent enough, it should be cited to show the true countenance of the libertine Luther, the man whom the Protestants say divinely appointed by God for the mission of reforming the Catholic Church.
Sometimes, as needed, Luther has diametrically opposed passages to those mentioned here; It is the rest of your Catholic heritage. What is expressed here is his and his alone; it's your reformed doctrine - it's your gospel. Can a Protestant lady sympathize with his founder and model who treats woman's fame and modesty so badly and so disrespectfully? ... It is simply infamous and horrendous, low and vile Luther's concept of women that guarantees they are all unclean and sinful (Erleangen vol. II p. 66).
Poor Protestants, it is to cover your face with a disgrace before such a father ... I suppose you are not good Protestants, for if you were, you would follow your father's example ... and I do not believe you will. I prefer to suppose you evil Protestants, so that I may consider you to be good Christians ... men of faith and people of morals.

 

6. RAPTORS AND SHEETS

The “reformer's” ideas about marriage reveal to us the moral rot of his and society's then in full decay and without moral restraint. In a furious, feverish activity, looking excited by his own demon, Luther multiplies pasquins addressed to all, secular and religious, men and women without exception. Some read them out of curiosity, attracted by the fiery tone of the style, and others out of wickedness, to carry the evil Reformation forward with the wicked. Even in convents perverse doctrines have penetrated. Luther regarded chastity as a miracle as he wrote to the prior of Lichtemberg: “Religious vows,” he writes, “are null, for they demand the impossible. Chastity is not in our power, as is not the ability to do miracles.
Man cannot overcome the natural inclination to marriage. Anyone who wants to be single must depose the title of man and prove that he is an angel or a spirit, for God does not give this to a man. The poor prior, who by weakness felt a great desire to overthrow the divine yoke, followed Luther's counsel and eventually married.
Such doctrines attracted certain nuns or false nuns who had embraced cloistered life, without vocation, out of interest or disgust of the world, finding them in the doctrine of the false friar a means of breaking free of a burden they could not bear, for they had embraced the cloistered life without vocation, out of interest or disgust. In Nimbschen, near Grimnia, was a Cistercian convent, where the reckless superiors had admitted worldly girls, who sought to stand out rather than sanctify themselves there.
One of them came to terms with Luther, who advised them to leave the convent and to gather near him to marry. The reformer organized a kidnapping, which entrusted to his friend Leonardo Koppe, master in the art. Already on Holy Wednesday 1523, with 16 companions, he had already invaded the convent of the Torgan Franciscans, throwing over the wall the opposing religious and tearing open doors and windows, because the Franciscans did not accept reform or freedom. proposal. Koppe, under Luther's orders, prepared a dramatic escape for the nuns of Nimbschen. On Hallelujah Saturday he entered the convent with a covered car full of goods for the provision of the nuns. The rebel nuns were on guard and made their arrangements. While unloading the cargo, 12 nuns sneaked into the vacant truck, without the rest of the community noticing the evasion of the Lutheranates, who headed for Wittemberg, where they were welcomed by several Protestant families. Luther titled Koppe “Blessed Thief!
And he compared him to the Christ who, too, such a sublime conqueror, had torn his kingdom from the clutches of the prince of the world. Pastor Amsdorf immediately offered one of the fugitives in marriage to the apostate vicar, saying as if it were something else: “If you want a younger one, you can choose from the most beautiful ones” (Kolde Analecta Lutherana, p. 443). The contemporaries of the morality of these unfortunate graduates, who had been preached of the futility of good works and the irrestibility of lust, are indeed painful and humiliating (Leonel Franca: Luther and Mr. Br. Hansen).
Melanchton, referring to Luther's relations with these unfortunate fallen ones, deplored his softening influence by being able to thwart the most rigidly tempered characters. Another Lutheran, Eoban Esse, claimed in 1523 that such apostates were not to be overcome in lasciviousness by any courtesan (Nulla Phylles nonnis est nostri mammosior –Est. Fam. Morpugi p.87)

 

7. CATHERINA OF BORA

Among the graduates, leaving the convent under the influence of Luther, was Catherine of Bora. "Without being a beauty, says Grisar, Catherine wanted to marry Luther or Amsdorf." To settle his favorite, he multiplied the pitfalls of female cunning. From contemporary references, Catherine's precedents did not highly recommend her morality. On August 10, 1528, Joachim de Heyden wrote to Catherine herself, reproaching her for having entered Wittemberg as a ballerina and having lived there with Luther before marriage as a miserable fallen (Enders Vol. VI p .334). In 1523 he had been in love with Jerome Baumgastner, who later (1529) married another. In the same year (1523) Cristiano [II], King of Denmark, exiled, passed through Wittemberg and there he met Catherine, who from this meeting retained as a significant memory the gift of a ring (Koestlin: Luter I. p.728). These are the predicates of such a "noble lady, worthy of all respect, for her gifts of spirit and heart" as the Protestants claim it. It is clear from the facts that Catherine was an addicted, flirtatious creature looking for marriage, little different from a lost woman. Luther was "hooked" by her. It's Melanchton's word. What was the life and relationship of Luther and Catherine before marriage? From what we have described above about his life and the excesses practiced at Wittemberg, it is difficult to conjecture, although history does not relate it, since these are things that cannot be described and that the little shame that still existed in him prevented him from disclosing it. . Writing to Mansfeld's counselor Ruthel, the reformer said, "If I can, despite the devil, I will still marry Catherine" (De Wette II. P. 655). All his freedoms with her were in public, and they grazed the murmurings and unfavorable comments. The apostate resolved to end all rumors, for the reality of the fact. In the sermon on marriage Luther had said, “Just as it is not in my power to cease to be a man, so I cannot live without a woman, and this is more accurate to me than eating and drinking.” Considering a necessity, the reformer He wanted to satisfy her, and decided to take “his” Catherine as his former Cistercian nun.

 

8. LUTERO'S “MARRIAGE”

Luther hastily followed his advice to others. Looking closely at the story, it is clear that he had not married soon after leaving the convent for fear of displeasing his protector Frederico de Saxe who had repeatedly expressed revulsion at these “unions of former nuns with former monks”. " On May 5, 1525 Frederick passed away ... and on June 13 echoed in the Reformed World, as an unexpected news, the news of the marriage of the former monk of Wittemberg, “the envoy of God, to restore the purity of the Gospel and Luther's concubinage was, for Melanchton, a real thunderbolt, such as the scandal that caused him: the other disciples of the chief laughed in earnest. To the world it was new; for Luther and Catherine it was old stuff ...
On the evening of June 13 the formalities of such concubinage were carried out at Luther's house by the pastor, former vicar of Wittemberg: Johan Bugenlagen. Few witnesses were admitted. Only Justus Jonas, the painter Lucas Cranach and wife, and the teacher Dr. Apel were allowed in. The outdoor party was scheduled for the early days of July. Here are Luther and Catherine, both bound by vows of chastity, made sacrilegious of their promises, not being able to marry but entering solemnly into a life of concubinage that would last until death. Here are the seven main reasons Luther himself put forward to justify his sacrilegious covenant:
1) To close the mouths of those who accused him of illicit relations with Catherine;
2) To pity the poor abandoned nun;
3) To shame Catholics who intended the marriage to be anti-evangelical (according to Luther);
4) Follow the advice of his father, who called his vows a work of the devil;
5) Sew the mouths of their friends, who mocked their plan to marry;
6) Resist the hatred of the devil as a result of the war of the peasants, for they were furious against Luther because of his hypocritical attitudes;
7) We can add to this Luther's expectation that the world would soon end, and God would find him thus married.
Thus we have before us a curious psychological phenomenon: a candidate for death and marriage. Here's what he wrote after the concubinage: “With this marriage, I made myself so cowardly and despicable; I hope the friends will laugh, and the devils will cry. The world, with its sages, does not yet recognize the fervent and holy work of God and only to me consider it an unholy and diabolical work ”. Luther's friend Jerome Schurf had stated shortly before the daze: "If this monk takes a wife, the whole world and even the devil will laugh" (Annales Evangelii I. p.274).
Erasmus thus ridiculed the reformer: “Others end tragedies with marriage; here is a drama that ends this way. ”Among the comics the noise ends equally in the wedding, and everything is at peace ... Among the Protestants the same happens ... Luther gave the example ...
He becomes calmer now and no longer exalts himself in pity. No one is so angry that his wife cannot calm him down ”(Op. Lugd. Batav. 1703, III Coll. 900 Dec. 1515). On May 13, 1526, Erasmus had to say the opposite of the last sentence, declaring Luther to be more furious than before.
This is how Luther's exploits ended and where the farce of all his imitators ended: the renegades and apostates. They can all repeat their father's phrase: carnis meae indomitae uror magnis ignibus, behold, I have left my dignity, my faith, and sold my soul for a woman.
It is the story that is always repeated: the same corruption and the same remedy. When an unfortunate priest, gnawed deep inside by the cancer of impurity, launches his EUREKA to the world: "I have found the light ..." and publishes his pamphlet "Because I left the Roman Church", just look behind the curtain: there will be hidden "her" Catherine. They are apostates because they are libertines. They leave the Church to demand the chastity of their ministers, because in their souls has entered the vice of debauchery.
They are fruits that fall because they are rotten inside. They are useless grass, weeds, which, according to Klaus Harm's Protestant expression, have been relegated because, "when the Pope clears his domain, he throws what is no good in the Protestant camp." 9. CONCLUSION It is time for us to stop exposing such a sad scene, more like an imaginary romance picture, than with a real-life episode. Everything the adherents of the "father" of Protestantism wrote about the moral predicates of the "great man" is nothing but invention. More lost and low element is impossible to appear. The small sample above is enough to demonstrate it. And it should be noted that nothing was invented here, but it is all based on the writings of the reformer himself and his contemporaries, who certainly did not increase but restrained the shameful side of the facts as much as possible. Was this crapulous man the God whom God had appointed as the reformer of the Catholic Church? The true portrayal of Luther, the only one posterity can admit, is that which has been transmitted to us by the real and genuine history of the facts.
In view of such offenses and baseness, we may well repeat the word of the divine Master: “EX FRUCTIBUS EORUM CONGOSCETIS ILLOS: By their fruits you shall know them. We saw closely the fruits of reformation: they are sad, but they are worthy shoots of the tree Luther planted with his sad rebellion and the example of his most deplorable life.

 

CHAPTER VIII

The Foundations of the Protestant Sects

We already know Luther's life well, so that we can now appreciate the work. He broke with Rome, calling it "Antichrist!" Now if Rome, or the ancient Church founded by Jesus Christ on Peter, was, for Luther, the Antichrist, in order to be able to reform it and to found “his sect”, he must in all contradict the multisecular institution of the Popes. Therefore, the basis of the reform system was: the denial of Rome and all that it teaches.
A wise reformer would have accepted Catholic doctrine and, after diligent scrutiny, expunged it from anything he thought unrelated to the truth. Luther, however, being a fool, an obsessed, an unbalanced one as we are tired to verify, was therefore in all things true to his proud and extremist genius, beginning to absolutely oppose the Catholic Church. If for him, in paganism, in Buddhism, in Islam, along with errors there could be good things, in the Catholic Church everything was bad, perverse, and nothing was profitable. Since Rome said: white, Luther exclaimed: black. If the Church commanded, Luther forbade it, so Luther's true definition of Protestantism is: THE NEGATION OF ALL WHAT IS ROME AND ALL WHAT ROME TEACHES. Luther wanted to found a new church. He was not content with destroying only what he had found: denial is not reality, it is lack, absence, and as such cannot be sustained by itself; It therefore needed something positive for the foundation of the reform. We will see it in this chapter.
1. THE FIRST PROJECTS By beginning his reform, Luther intended only to contradict Catholicism, without thinking of any definitive organization. Organizing a Lutheran Church: These are two contradictory terms, for what implies subversion, preaches anarchy, and general revolt can never be called perfect society. Seeing the good result of his system of interpretation of the Bible, the friar then began to think of a system, a religious organization.
The Catholic Church with its harmonious and beautiful hierarchy, being a divine-human society, visible, independent of temporal powers, ruled by God through the successor of St. Peter, to whom Christ had entrusted the keys of the kingdom of God, and the who had given the power to teach, to forgive and to direct, could not have equivalent or be copied; what would the rebellious monk do? ... How to carry out his project? ... Luther reflected, and the devil, his faithful inspirer, fitted into his head a kind of ideal church that would consist of a fraternal union of believers known to him. only for Christ, whom they would indoctrinate and guide only. For the adepts the Bible would suffice; it would bring to each one the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Such is the first mother idea of ​​the "reformer" and respect for the new church.
He began by teaching: the outer church is a devil's thing. Jesus Christ works is inwardly, and one can hardly think of church and bishops. However, Luther soon realized that such a thing was not durable, and there must be at least some visible element in his institution. Hence came his second conception: that of a people's church, an invisible body of believers, under the visible protection of state. Disillusionment was not expected, and Luther soon saw that he could not count on the people to follow his doctrine, nor did he have sufficient authority to impose his capricious ideas. Exciting the revolt is easy ...
Obtaining the calm and obedience of an unsubmissive people is very difficult. For the third time Luther changed his mind and in 1526 intended to organize a national church under the immediate direction of temporal power. Such a project, communicated by the innovator to the various German princes, necessarily won the sympathy of many of them.
The Church had great possessions in Germany; thus the prospect of being able to seize everything she owned was for the authorities an important factor in accepting the founding of the state church.
Luther asked the princes to organize a religious visit to the various churches to oblige the people to adopt the Gospel. In 1527, under the direction of the reformer, Prince John of Saxe published the “Instruction regulating such an inspection, reserving immediate authority over spiritual things. The national church became a church of strength, for civil authority could coerce its subjects to embrace the religion which it professed "CUJUS REGIO, ILLIUS ET RELIGIO".
The civil pastoral visit took place for the first time in 1527, raising complaints and laments everywhere. To avoid abuse, the office of overseers, entrusted to the shepherds of large cities, was invented to exercise general vigilance over doctrine and morals. In the instruction of the visitors in 1527 an inquiry was made against lay people; and this organization was not a dead letter, for in 1529, in REINHARDESBRUNN, six people were condemned to death for having abjured Luther's doctrine. This fact made the Protestant Wapples write: "... the principles of evangelical liberty, so touted by Luther, were shamefully contradicted by this lay inquisition" (Grisar III 745).
Here is a point that is beginning to stand out clearly in the tumult of Lutheran doctrines. The Reformed, government-dependent church was to be visited by two authorities: a lay visitor in the name of the government, and a superintendent elected by the faithful to uphold the doctrine. It was a blatant contradiction: the state-dependent church; and the latter may compel the people to adopt the religion which he professes; and the overseer being simultaneously charged with maintaining the unity of faith and morals. They are two opposing and fighting authorities; it is the two Lords to be served, which is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Luther wanted to found a church on a different base from the Catholic Church; on such a foundation, as it turns out, was civil power ... human, political work ... opposed to the work of the Divine Master. This beginning is enough to see that in Protestantism everything is HUMAN, purely human, without even a trace of supernatural, to indicate the sky to us.

 

2. CONSTITUTION OF PROTESTANISM

The basis on which Luther will establish his religious system is well known to us. First of all it was his duty to give him the character of public exercise. Mass no longer served; it should therefore disappear. Luther and Melanchton were teachers: preaching would replace the holy sacrifice, and the podium would take the place of the altar. However, it was not appropriate to suddenly suppress the ceremonies of the Mass so as not to exasperate the people so accustomed to it.
Luther eliminated all that was Sacrifice itself, preserving the external ceremonies and the Latin language; It was not until 1526 that he published a brochure: “The German Mass”, modifying everything and making the cumin easier for new changes. Such an act was celebrated only on Sundays to better deceive the newly converted or the perverted into believing that there was only accidental change between ancient religion and reform. Such a German mass did not produce the effect the reformer expected; Feeling the ridicule of the invention himself, he gradually replaced it with reading the Bible and singing hymns in common. Luther was neither a poet nor a musician, although he liked poetry, music, and singing. It does not appear to have produced any work, although certain authors attribute to it the paternity of the Protestant hymns. The great reformation that Luther intended to bring about, and indeed attained, boiled down to the exclusive reading of the Bible, without explanation, leaving all interpretation to the reader's discretion. For this to happen, a simple, popular translation needed by everyone was needed; the reformer himself, as we have seen, began the work, finishing it shortly before his death.
In one of the first chapters we talked about this translation in which Protestants themselves acknowledge that there are many serious shortcomings. JERONYMS EMSER says that Luther turns the Bible so much to faith without works, that in the end there is nothing else. It indicates 1,400 forgeries. JOHN DIETENBERGER, Luther's contemporary, makes this point: “What Luther does not want, he suppresses it in the Bible; whatever fits his will he gathers him, in proof of his errors ”(Grisar III. 440. note 1). PHILIPS VON MARNIX writes: “Of all the translations in use in the Protestant churches, none exist that departs so far from the original text as Luther's” (Tübenger Theol .: Quartalschrift, 1848). Protestant JOSIAS BUNSEN marks 3,000 counterfeit passages, and makes Luther's work the least accurate of all, although it manifests the product of a genius (F. Nippold: Christian Von Bunser, 1868, III, 183). It will not be without interest and profit to point out here some of the defects found in Luther, to show how he respected the word of God, making it a weapon, not to discover the truth, but to strengthen his errors.
These quotations will clearly show the revolting monk's visible bad faith, the wickedness of his intentions in using Holy Scripture. The word FAIR is replaced by the word godly. Noah, Job, Zechariah, Jesus' nourishing father, Joseph, are all godly men, wanting the Reformer to prove by such a change that they had faith in God, and that by justification Christ's justification was applied to them. The word "CHURCH" is carefully and timidly avoided, replacing it with the term: UNION. In St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, from which Luther extracted his errors, he shamefully modified the Apostle's text to adapt it to his ideas. The text says that man is justifiably justified by grace, through redemption ... through his blood, through faith. Luther wickedly adds the word "alone" invented by him, and translates: MAN IS JUSTIFIED ONLY BY FAITH (Rom. III, 25). Another purposeful forgery we find in chapter 8. That he sought to adapt to his misconceptions. St. Paul expresses himself this way: GOD, SENDING HIS SON IN SIMILAR MEAT TO SIN, BECAUSE OF SIN CONDEMNED SIN IN THE MEAT (Rom 8: 3). Luther amended the text: FOR SIN, BY TERMS: "FOR SIN." One soon sees the difference in meaning which he introduced with such falsification.
The Apostle teaches that Jesus Christ became man to atone for men's sins, while Luther says that Jesus became man for sin, that is, born in sin (to refute the Immaculate Conception of Mary). The falsification quoted: MAN IS JUSTIFIED ONLY BY FAITH WITHOUT WORKS, met with great opposition. Luther replied to his censors, stating his reasons, with no other basis than his opinions, and ends rudely by exclaiming: “The asses of such asses concerning the word: SOLA - alone, deserve no other answer, but Luther wants it to be so. and says: He is a doctor above all doctors of the whole papacy. So we need to stay in this. To the papist, who insists on dealing with the word ONLY, MUST ANSWER: Doctor Luther wants it to be so. SIC VOLO, SIC JUBEO, SIT PRO RATIONE VOLUNTAS.
So I want, so I command, my will is the reason. ” As it turns out, Luther is the same as always: the same pride, the same obsession, the same hatred for all that is Catholic. What he was, is and will be.

 

3. ADVERTISEMENTS AND VIOLENCES

The reformer's greatest concern was to spread his foolishness throughout Germany. As we have seen, the ground was admirably prepared. His spectacular eloquence, his apocalyptic screams, popular verses and songs, caricature drawings, grotesque satire, all he used to make his ideas triumph.
Beside the pervert others stood, as only happened; if saints draw virtue to themselves; the wicked are accompanied by wickedness. Melanchton, Justus Jonas, Spalatino, Kang, Johan Buzenhagem, Nicholas von Amsdorf, Wenceslau Link Eclenburg, etc. They were the reformer's first companions. Melanchton, above all, was his right white. Haughty, intelligent, he devoted himself body and soul to the work he began. It was he who corrected Luther's translation of the Bible. In 1521 he published a volume: "LOCI COMMUNES" or fundamental lines of the reform, in which he expounded all the doctrines of the new sect, from the theological point of view.
Luther thus opined on this work: The thousands of Jeronimos, Hilarioes, and Macarius, the saints of the Tabaids and deserts, are not worthy to turn off Melanchton's shoes (Grisar II 267). Aided by these former priests, former monks, and teachers whom he was able to enthusiasm, to fanaticize, Luther did not hesitate, threw himself forward, determined to win, no matter what. The successor of his protector Frederick of Saxe was Johan de Saxe, a fanatical Lutheran, whom the Reformer completely dominated; from this he issued a decree prohibiting Catholic preaching and imposing the Lutheran (W. Erl. 53ps 367, 9 Feb. 1526).
At Wittemberg, in the Church of All Saints, despite Luther's efforts, Catholic religious service continued, an abuse that Luther considered urgent to end. And, 1st. From March 1533, he demands from the Chapter the suppression of the Mass and other religious ceremonies, but meets with strong resistance from the Dean and the Councilors. Johan de Saxe himself was against such an extreme measure, not to lose the foundation of masses, made for the benefit of his father. Luther insisted and decidedly took a stand against the prince, declaring to the councils that the prince had nothing to do with it. “You know,” he says, “that St. Peter said that God must be obeyed rather than the prince” (Erl. 53 p. 178) Not having achieved victory, he addressed the Lutheranized people of the place and, in a public lecture, he shouted, “What do we have to do with the prince? He can only rule in temporal things; if it persists, we should tell it; Lord, stand on your own ground. ” This time he did nothing but did not get discouraged. On November 17, 1524, he addresses the Chapter: “If you do not voluntarily leave Masses, Vigils, and everything that opposes the Gospel, you will leave it against your will. I demand a definitive answer: Yes or no, and this until next Sunday, for my patience has run out ”(W. Erl. 53 p.269). Ten days later he preached so vehemently about the case that the population was exalted and willing to do anything. He rushed to the counselor's houses, roaring and threatening with death, breaking the windowpanes of the Dean's house and demanding that Luther's will be executed. In the face of these excesses the Chapter gave way, and at the Christmas party of 1524 the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was definitively abolished. Luther triumphed.

 

4. ADVERSARY OF THE REFORMER

Let us not think, however, that Luther lacked resistance. There was even firm and decided opposition from both the friends of the Church and Luther's own affections. The first opposing barrier the reformer had to meet was that of Erasmus, a Dutchman, professor at the University of Rotterdam and a friend of the former monk. He silently watched Luther's revolutionary movement and did not intend to fight. But at the request of various authorities, such as Henry VIII, George of Saxe, the Emperor, and Pope Hadrian VI himself, he decided to refute the points he found weak in Luther's doctrine. Fearing Erasmus's intervention, the reformer wrote to him in 1524: Do not write against me; do not increase the number and strength of my opponents. “Above all do not publish anything against me, as I will not do against you”  (Corresp. IV. 319).
Luther professed the denial of human liberty to exalt Divine Mercy. Against this teaching Erasmus published in 1524 his: DE LIBERO ARBITRIO DIATRIBE, written in elegant Latin and based on the Holy Fathers and the tradition of the past centuries. Unfortunately We, defending free will, leaned too far to this side, attaching too much importance to man's will and almost none to divine grace. On this point, his book DIATRIBE, while containing good arguments, did not fully satisfy Catholic aspirations. Melanchton himself felt Erasmus's modest moderation and thanked him for this concession (Corp. ref. 1,675, 80. Sept. 1524). Luther felt the blow badly, but it was not until a year later that he resolved to respond, to let his opponent's arguments fall a little into oblivion. It was written: DE SERVO ARBITRIO, a book of vehement controversy, though full of contradictions and devoid of serious exegesis, where the reformer unreservedly expounded his ideas of determinism and crude pantheism. The theme always repeated is: The majesty of God and the uniqueness of his action must be exalted by the crushing of man (WW XVIII: 711).
In the purely Catholic arena the first champion facing the reformer was Dr. John Eck, the winner of the Leipzig discussion. Dr. Eck, in body and soul, was the expression of nobility and strength. After his first victory over Luther, they were offered dignities, but he humbly refused, saying that he wanted to remain a simple schoolmaster for life (Jansen Pastor VII. 593).
The noble Catholic fighter endured with admirable patience the mockery and slander of the Lutherans; he fought to the death in 1543 in defense of the Church, and the Bavarian sage's doctrinal expositions triumphed over all adverse attacks, to the point that Luther himself never wished to argue with him, content to insult him and mock him. his. Among several valuable books left the “Manual against the Lutherans!”, Which in the year 1600 already had 50 editions. Johan Cochleus was another anti-Protestant fighter.
At first, when Dean of Francfort had been for a moment attracted and almost seduced by Luther's eloquence, but in 1520 he turned his back on him and declared a war without respite by punishment, publishing nearly 200 rebuttals to error. His book "Seven-headed Luther" is known, in which he demonstrates the continuing contradictions of the reformer. Cochleus's books are a source of precious information, though he seems to have sometimes fallen into exaggeration, listening to the revulsion that inspired his adversary's mistakes. Another insightful and active enemy of Luther was Father Johan Faber. At first there was a silent witness to the reformist movement; But after seeing Luther's bad faith, lies, and violence, he entered the lyre, vibrating to the reformation with crushing blows full of science and logic, in three productions of value which he published from 1522 to 1530. In 1530 the Father Faber was appointed Bishop of Vienna by Pope Clement VII; there continued the controversy until 1541 when he died. Another defender of Church rights was JORGE WITZEL. Seduced for a moment by the writings of ERASM, this educated and sincere priest even violated the vow of celibacy by contracting marriage; soon after, however, he understood the errors and came back contrite within the one true Church, forming an untamed polemicist of the truth against the errors in focus.
No other Antiluteran has been more persecuted and attacked by Protestants, who were overwhelmed by the vibrant logic and dialectic of the tireless polemicist's more than 1200 writings. Many others, Bishops and Priests, arose to defend the divine deposit of truth, among which the famous Jesuit Peter Canisius, who would later be elevated to the honors of the altars and proclaimed Doctor of the Church, should be noted. Unfortunately the decay was so great that this legion of heroes could save society from struggling with the doubts of the spirit, the ambitions of pride and the corruption of the flesh.

 

5.“The Monk” and the Fans

In his own party the "reformist chief" would encounter many enemies. It is one of the phenomena that always manifest among the deformers or sectarians of lying novelties: the master sets the principles; and the disciples draw unanticipated conclusions, which destroy their own principles.
They are fanatical minions, enlightened pretenders who do not intend to adopt a reform but to use it to their own advantage. Such fanatics found extensive field in Luther's doctrines: ONLY THE BIBLE, without good works; individual, independent interpretation; only faith is necessary for salvation; all of this was an open door from the doctrinal buildings Luther intended to build and a means of countering his own doctrines. Luther presents himself here as a curious anomaly: he is a sectarian and calls himself an enlightened God. He himself states that he denies himself at the same time. A new pervert, Möhler, once asked him if he had definitively left the Catholic Church to follow his own inspiration: “No,” replies the heretic, “I never left the Catholic Church.
In the papacy there is much good, that is where the true Baptism is, the Sacrament of the Altar, the true Catechism ... It is in the Papacy that the true Christianity is found ”(Luther in Ochummenisckerr Sicht, Art. VA Hansen, pg. 92).
He reaffirmed that he would always remain a member of this Church. Then, contradicting himself, he adds: "Only the Pope, he says, according to my conviction, is the Antichrist, who has corrupted everything in the Church, and that is why I attack him without pity or truce." Curious mindset! A man who suppressed the Mass, the hierarchy, the indulgences, and so much more, accused himself of having rejected only the papacy. The poor reformer was visibly an unbalanced, obsessed man, as we have seen on every page of this story.
Asking Luther which fanatics, the heretics of his day, he pointed them out in these words once written to a friend: “What do you think of your sins? If you had as many sins as Zwingli, Carlostadt and Münzer have, and all atheists, faith in Christ would erase them all. ”
Looking closely at the thought of the reformer, we find that opposing his ideas or departing from them is the only possible sin to his disciples, for Luther thought himself called by God, giving himself the right to condemn anyone who did not think as him.

 

6. FALSE FRIENDS OF LUTERO

Luther turned to several apostate Fathers and Friars to extend his evil work; As always, however, in such matters these co-workers were not friends at heart, but simply of interest and vice. Pride and sensuality were the two stairs by which they only wanted to reach positions they could not otherwise achieve.
Such friends were more imitators of Luther's examples than of his doctrine, though the relationship between the two was very close. Luther taught that one could freely interpret the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, regardless of any authority. That was how he indoctrinated and did so.
It was logical that his companions did as he did. It was a right that he had enjoyed, and which they intended to enjoy, each indoctrinating himself at his own risk, without consulting the master who thought himself the sole keeper of the reform. This was for the chief the greatest of sins.
While the apostate monk said, "I have the inspiration of the Holy Spirit," his followers replied, "We have it too." And they accused each other of wrong and false interpretations of Holy Scripture. It was the Babel of reformation; Carlostadt had been expelled from Wittemberg when Luther had returned from Wartburg. Then, as a wandering Jew, he went through various places, came into contact with the renamer Tomás Münzer, and finally settled in Strasburg. He found a strong arm there in Zwingli, Capito and Butzer, other fanatics, and soon began his depredations, breaking the images, destroying altars, paintings and all that Catholic art had accumulated as an expression of faith and piety.
Shortly afterwards Luther directed his batteries at Carlostadt: “It is necessary to cover the mouth of this devil and his followers,” he says, “It may be that he does not want to kill or sow the revolt; At this point, however, I must say that it has a murderous and revolutionary spirit. He is a secret and traitorous devil. ”Speaking of Carlostadt's companions, Münzer and Valentin leckelsamer, the reformer added:“ What do we have to do here with an irrational man? Intelligence is humbled even to the skin of a devil, who knows nothing but to blaspheme and desecrate what God says and did. ”Vehement and insulting controversies were between Luther and his former disciples.
Finally, Carlostadt and his companions had to give in to the violence of their master's attacks and, especially, to the civil power that supported him. Münzer did not spare Luther. Here is a simple topic written against him, mocking his pride: “With all his hypocritical humility he presents himself as a pope, who delivers to princes convents and churches. It speaks of "our protection" as if it were a prince. And his pride presents itself as if he were born a star. The all-too-wise sage and doctor, the liar Luther, hunts and pursues the rest. Like a dog from hell or a snake crawling over the rocks. ” Elsewhere he calls Luther: "The Virgin Martin" ...
What a pure virgin ... the shameless partisan monk of the rich and succulent feasts. ” Luther was not overcome by insults, for in this he was invincible.
The discussion became especially violent against Zwingli. Both were sent devoutly to the devil, each with greater will. (Audin: Luther II. P. 356). At a conference they had in Marburg they insulted themselves with horrible anathemas, such as: devil, son of Satan, etc ... And perhaps they were both right. “Zwingli is a satanized, unsathanized, supersathanized individual,” said the reform chief. "Luther is possessed of the devil, he looks like a grunting pig in a flower garden," retorted Zwingli. Upon learning of the death of Zwingli who had fallen on the battlefield when, in front of his troops, trying to invade Switzerland to protest it, the chief exclaimed: “It is good that Zwingli to Carlostadt get crushed… Zwingli died like a murderer , because I wanted to force others to embrace their mistakes (Schlaginhhaufen Aufzeichnungem p. I).
And so on. Be content with this sample of the wild language of the early Protestants.

 

7. CONCLUSION

In this environment, and thanks to the impulse of such men, Protestantism was spreading to arouse hatred, persecution, doubt and atheism everywhere. EX TRUCTIBUS EORAM COGNOSCETIS EOS: “You shall know them by their fruits,” he had said of the divine Master. From Luther to today Protestantism has been spread almost exclusively by apostate priests and addicted people, unable to live up to their dignity and the virtue of their state.
It was enough to point out these facts of the Protestant exordium: it is not necessary step by step to follow its progress, in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway, the Netherlands and other countries where it was penetrating, always based on the same motives and using the same means to conclude with absolute certainty: - Protestantism is addicted to the base. It is not a religion, but a destructive endeavor of all religion.
Reflect the good but deceived and ignorant Protestants, and judge where the truth lies: whether with the eternal Roman Catholic Apostolic Church or the sect of Luther, Zwingli, Carlostadt, and other fanatics and addicts, who constitute a shame to society, a bruise to the history of the Reformation and the sensitive proof of the falsehood of the sect they promulgated.

 

CHAPTER IX

LUTERO'S AID


The gigantic, albeit ominous, work created by the Wittemberg heretic nevertheless excites our curiosity, for it seems strange to us that a wicked man such as himself could have gained such descent and had such a great influence over his time. What would your celebrity have resulted in?
Protestants turned Luther into a kind of myth, clouded with glory, unwillingly lacking intellectual ability or genius; today, however, in the light of the right documents and tradition, less passionate spirits, even among Protestants, openly acknowledge that Luther was all that we described above and an angry extremist. To see the explanation of Luther's arrogance and influence, let us examine the environment, the spirit of the day, rather than the personality of the reformer himself. We already know a lot about the reformist feat; Let us now search the lives of his first companions. Among them are mainly Zwingli, Carlostadt, Calvin and Henry VIII. 1. The Fire Zwingli Let us begin with the Zwingli, whose name and extravagance we have already been told through what little has been said about him. Zwingli was born in 1484 in Windlhausen and was the son of poor peasants. He was ordained a priest and appointed parish priest, but his criminal relations with a woman forced him to leave the parish.
And in the company of another immoral apostate like him, in 1522 he petitioned the bishop of Constance, begging him to grant the clergy permission to marry. In this document, Zwingli and his insolent companions plainly and frankly confessed the scandalous life of leading, through abominable filth, with women of bad life (Hergen. Hist. T. vp98). As the Bishop refused to content them, Zwingli rebelled against ecclesiastical authority and began to live outrageously, with a lost woman named Ana Reinard, widow of a magistrate, and of this woman had a son (Darras; Hist. Egr (33). Accompanied by large numbers of Protestant peasants, Zwingli entered the churches and destroyed the images and statues of the saints and the altars, revolutionizing the whole of Switzerland. On October 11, 1531 the apostate, wounded in the battle of Cappel provoked by him, died to invade 4 Catholic districts; in this combat took an active part; his body was caught and charred by the winners. Thus ended the scandal of the turbulent chief and founder of Protestantism in Switzerland. Zwingli was one of those who most attacked the prerogatives of Blessed Mary, denying her the possibility of being a virgin. Luther, appreciating his worthy emulus and disciple, said: “I cannot read this man's books. They are clearly opposed to the Church. Not only are they reprehensible, but they become the cause of perdition for the very unhappy. ” "Zwingli," he says elsewhere, "died and was condemned." It should be noted that Zwingli is considered a brilliant star of the sect and one of its founders, that is, a man who is said to have been sent by God to eradicate the abuses of the Catholic Church and to restore evangelical morality in all its purity.

 

2. THE ICONOCLASTA CARLOSTADT

Here is another Protestant monster, notorious disciple of the reformer, whose doctrine he applied before him. He was forced to flee and later became the enemy of his master because of ideological differences. His real name was André Bodenstein. He was an apostate priest, Archdeacon of Wittemberg and who led, like his master, the same life of public mance. In the year 1521 Carlostadt, the apostate monk Didymus, and another section of fanatical students and peasants, entered the churches, pulverized the images and statues, dismantled the altars, committing all manner of sacrilegious thefts; they razed more than a thousand convents; they burned more than 300 churches and destroyed numerous library manuscript treasures.
It was the so-called peasant war, which spread to various provinces of Germany. In this fratricidal struggle more than 50,000 men died, deluded by the cruel Anabaptists, who sought to re-establish the republic without civil power and ecclesiastical authority. Everyone should live without rule, without law, in absolute communism, not only for the good of fortune, but even for women. From the top of the pulpit, Didymus counseled parents to keep their children away from humanities studies; Carlostadt declared war on all human knowledge: it was the dissolution of the Universities, which soon began to dismember. Melanchton, speaking of Carlostadt, says: “… he was a brutal man, devoid of talent and knowledge, and who, far from having the spirit of God, neither knew nor practiced the duties inherent in civilized life. He showed obvious proof of wickedness, condemned all the laws laid down by the pagans, and took as a single rule the law of Moses. ” Luther, even more expressive, in judging his faithful disciple: “Carlostadt,” he said, “surrendered to his disapproved thinking. I think the poor man has the devil in his belly (sic). May God have mercy on your sin that is death ”(Audin: Hist. Luth. P.457). When Nicholas Stock began the Anabaptist sect, Carlostadt embraced it. The Lutherans say of him: "It cannot be denied that Carlostadt was strangled by the devil." It is enough to judge what the fierce heretic was.

 

3. The infamous Calvin

It is the third column of the Protestant building ... John Calvin was born in Noyon, Picardy, in 1509. His parents were poor; they educated him in the catholic religion and obtained for him a benefit in the Gesino Chapel in Noyon Cathedral (1521). In 1523 he finished his studies in Paris, later obtaining the curate of Marteville.
His spirit began to show early on what it was: fickle, restless and violent. Not serving in the ecclesiastical militia, he went to the University of Orleans, where Luther's heretical doctrines had already penetrated. There Calvin was cut off from the faith by a Jacobin apostate, German, his roommate. Shortly thereafter he had relations with the queen of Navarre and openly joined Luther's new sect. Having traveled to various countries, he returned to Paris and became a preceptor at the College of Cardinal Lemosine, where he dogmatized in secret. Discovered, he was chased by the criminal judge, but escaped through the window, using rope-like sheets. From his hiding place on the outskirts of St. Victor he went to Noyon. His unreasonable ambition led him to desire a higher and more profitable benefit than he had ever received. The ambitious profit was granted to the son of the Constable of France, whose request was granted (Frendenfeld: cadres anal. De Hist. Universal I, II, p.309), for being the requesting rival well known by the ecclesiastical authority, for his Lutheran ideas. . Out of jealousy Calvin's interest was avenging, although the cause of the grant was mainly that he was not deserving the benefit because of his bad behavior, according to Protestants of the time. The dissolution of his customs, says historian Frendenfed (Hist. P. 369), was such that the magistrate of Noyon condemned him as Sodomite and made him brand red-hot, a circumstance that earned him the name of stigmatized. Protestant Schlussemburg writes: “Because of his doctrine and other nefarious crimes against which he was charged and tried before the courts, Calvin had to subject himself to the harsh need to leave his homeland; was (1534) screwed in the back like a wild ox by the court sentence, considered INFAME and deprived of benefits ”(Schlussemburg: Calvin t. II. p.72 - Bolsec: Life of Calvin and Theod. Beza, ed., 1835).
Schroek claims that after his departure from Noyon, he went to Calvin to Geneva, where William Tarel and Pedro Viret had introduced the reform of Zwingli, whose reorganization he embraced with such commitment and manner that he could be considered reformer or chief (Hist. Egr. since the time of reformation, ed.1805, II, pp. 175). Another Protestant historian writes: “In 1539 Calvin married in Strasbourg with the widow Ana Burrié, already perverted to him, soon returning to Geneva, where he became the most absolute despot ever seen on the face of the earth” (Encycl. Royal of Damstard (1824 t .; VI. II, p. 225). The Calvinist Galiffe thus speaks of his father and master: “Calvin is a bloodthirsty man, criminally famous, exceedingly intolerant, whose sight no one could hide; it was difficult for anyone to get rid of his "inexorable revenge" (Gal. Not. Glenealog. Ed. 1836 t. III. P. 21). Bucero, very friendly to Calvin, attests that he was spelled and the saddest figure in the Reformation. His letters prove inordinate arrogance and pride, and anyone who contradicted him was pampered with the epithets of: PIG, DONKEY, DOG, SLEEP, DRUNK, ENDEMONIED.
To Westphale, Lutheran, who called him a declaimer, he replied in these terms: “Your school is a fetid sty ... hear me, dog? Do you hear me, frantic? Can you hear me, beast? ”Wanting to look like a thaumaturge, he intended to perform a miracle publicly one day, reviving a companion of his debauchery, called Brulé. For this, he had pretended to be dead, and his wife, an accomplice to hypocrisy, wept near her husband's alleged corpse as Calvin passed by. Sobbing, the woman went to Calvin, informing her of the death of her husband. He comforted her by saying that he would resurrect the deceased to prove his mission as reformer. Approaching the simulated dead, he commanded in the name of God that he should rise; but ... Unfortunately, by God's punishment, the man was really dead. The woman, exasperated, loudly proclaimed sacrilegious hypocrisy. (Narrated by Saint Cardinal Belarmino). The story of Doctor Servetus testifies to the apostate's vindictive spirit. Servetus (Miguel Vilanova) had written a book against Calvin's errors. He swore to kill him. He sent a letter to Cardinal Tournon, Viceroy of France, accusing Servetus of heresy, which made the Cardinal exclaim: "One heretic accusing another." Shortly thereafter Servetus was arrested in Vienna by Calvin's order, and a few days later sentenced to death by slow fire and executed to the great satisfaction of the heretic. His master, who had inspired heresy, speaks of him in this way: "Calvin is violent and wicked, but all the better is the man we need to give impetus to our reform." Calvin is the most disgusting figure who presented the alleged Protestant reform: a true monster of corruption and hypocrisy. All his steps were calculated, and it was said that his eyes, firing an impure flame, cast deadly glances. The end of Calvin was the worthy conclusion of such a life. He had lived in the mud, died in rot. Here is how she was described by the Protestant Schlussemburg: “Such was the blow with which God struck Calvin with his mighty hand that he wretchedly exhaled his evil soul, desperate for his salvation, invoking demons and uttering the most execrable curses. , and the most horrible blasphemies. ” “He died of malignant fever, devoured, most ignoble and degrading, by a tingling of worms, and consumed by ulcerated abscesses, which none of the attendants could bear” (Th. Calvin 1594, p. 72). . This narration is confirmed by a disciple of Calvin, John Harem, eyewitness of his death, and thus states: “Calvin died as a despair, having one of those shameful and degrading deaths with which God punishes the wicked and the reprobates after having tormented by long and horrible sufferings: I can attest to it, in fact, because I saw with my own eyes its disastrous and tragic end ”(Horenius, Calvin's life) The same Horenius says:“ Calvin, unfortunate Calvin! Only those who are blind will no longer have in history the most infamous passages that weigh on this founding man of Presbyteranism. ”

 

4. THE BLOOD HENRIQUE VIII

Henry VIII, king of England, occupies a place of honor among the courtiers of Protestant libertinism. At first he was a zealous defender of the Catholic Church, having even written a book against Luther in defense of the Roman Pontificate. Offering this book to the Holy Father, the king wrote to him: “I wanted to make known to all that I am willing to defend at all times and to protect the Roman Church, not only with force and weapons, but even with productions. of my intelligence ”.
Unfortunately the king's heart was weak and inclined to sensual loves; this vice was enough, as indeed most of the Reformers did, to sacrifice his faith to the inclinations of his disorderly love. It was Henry VIII legitimately united with Catherine of Aragon when she began to harbor criminal passion to oppose Anne Boleyn. To satisfy her wish, she intended to annul her first marriage in order to marry her unhappy lover. Nothing spared to achieve its purpose: it offered valuable donations, prelatures, to attract supporters - all means of corruption were employed by it; The Roman pontiff was adamant, not wanting in any way to deviate from the Gospel maxim: WHAT GOD GATHERED DOES NOT SEVER MAN.
In view of this steadfastness, the King's flatterer Thomas Cranmer suggested to Henry the diabolical idea of ​​proclaiming himself pontiff of the Church of England and declaring his marriage dissolved, thus boasting the spiritual supremacy of the your kingdom. Before making this plan, Henry turned to Luther and Melanchton for advice on the realization of his project. Luther did not esteem him very much and had already called him before in his wild language: crowned ass, scoundrel, atheist, royal gullet.
Luther's vocabulary was not exhausted by this, and he continued to call him the crazy Henry, royal carnival, Thomist pig, and so on. Knowing these king's plans, the reformer changed his tone, applauded him, and hoped to win him over his cause. The crazy Henry became again, in Luther's expression: Majesty, Royal Highness, etc. In a letter dated September 21, 1535, Luther expressed the wish that the King of England would accept the Gospel and allow the preaching of reformation in his kingdom. Melanchton then wrote, in Luther's name, to the king: “The king may have a quiet conscience; take a second wife, and keep the first also, because the multiplication of wives is not forbidden by the law of God and should not be regarded as an extraordinary thing. ” Henry VIII followed the advice and overtook it.
Incidentally, Melanchton's warning received full confirmation from Cranmer, his great adviser and first Protestant archbishop. Cranmer therefore annulled Henry's marriage, declaring his fruit illegitimate, in the name of Jesus Christ and for the honor of God (Cobbet: letter II, p.76) Instigated by the infamous Cranmer who had been a priest but led a criminal life By having at the same time illicit relations with a woman in Germany and with another in England (Cobbet: Letter III. No. 98), Henry VIII threw himself into all the aberrations of a dissolute life. The historian of the Reformation of England, Protestant William Cobbet tells us frankly that the only reason Henry VIII left the Catholic Church and made himself Reformed chief was the LASCIVIA that dominated him.
He wanted to marry Anne Boleyn, though he was almost certain she was his daughter, as proved by Dr. Baytey, quoted by the author; Ana was the maid or maid of honor of Queen Catherine, his wife, whom she had married, consciously the Parliament and the Holy See, which had given her the affinity impediment that bound them. As the first woman lived, the Holy See could not grant her dispensation for such a marriage; therefore, Henry rebelled against the Pope and became a reformer.
By the time she was married to Ana, she was already pregnant. Shortly after his marriage, he had the unhappy beheaded to marry Joana Seymour again. This was the sole motive of reform in England, as all the more impartial historians claim, except for Hume and Bornet, who Cobbet asserts wrote their stories to ensure the profitable benefits they had invested. Lord Fritz-Willizm, with all the impartiality of an honest man, writes in this respect the following words: “For the honor of my land (he is English) I would not like to talk about the main reason, which was the cause of this great event (the reform ); can I shut up without incurring the partial? I must therefore say that this main motive was Henry's dishonest passion for Anne Boleyn. ”
To pluck the Catholic faith from the soul of his subjects, the incestuous Henry had beheaded thousands of people, including two cardinals; 18 bishops; 13 abbots; 2 little birds; 12 dukes and counts; 164 barons; 500 religious and 38 doctors of theology and jurisprudence. (Hergensother: t. III. P. 164). Luther, deluded in his hope of seeing Henry adopt his mistakes, wrote to him: “I want to leave you a moment of rest, because I am busy with the Bible to be translated, not to mention other things.
Again, I will take time to respond to that royal mouth that carries lies and poison! ... ”This is the true origin of the Anglican schism. All historians agree to present Henry VIII with the odious character of a crowned monster, a bloodthirsty king. In separating England from Rome, he did not attempt to innovate anything except the point of spiritual supremacy, sending to the gallows, bound with the same chains, both Roman Catholics who did not recognize spiritual supremacy, and the Lutherans and the sacramentals. they denied other articles of faith. In a word, it tried to form a non-Roman Catholic church.
He was deceived like all heretics, thinking that he could preserve the integrity of the faith by separating himself from the center of Catholic unity. It was not precisely Henry VIII who founded Anglicanism, but Cranmer. The name of this monster, says Cobbet, should forever be an object of execration. This wretch, accustomed to murder, treachery, wickedness, blasphemy, died in the midst of the flames he himself had kindled (Cobbet. Letter II. N.64). Henry, at the end of his life, was detested by all, leaving after him the reputation of being as cruel as the most terrible tyrants of pagan Rome. As he exhaled, he told those around him: “We have lost everything: the state, the fame, the conscience and the good!”

 

5. OTHER EMPLOYEES

Alongside the chief chiefs, other collaborators line up, but each one is more perverse and more addicted than the other. And who will win the prize of debauchery and revolt? Melanchton wrote a series of letters against the other Protestants and asked God for a man to kill Henry VIII (Watch XX). For his versatility, he died cursed for his own and deprived of the ecclesiastical grave (Dillinger t. I p.343).
CARLOSTADT, Wittemberg's canon and archdeacon, was one of the first to follow Luther along with JONAS, canon as well; but, as ADOLFO MENZEL says, they were also the first to marry the very scandal and disgust of Elector Philip, to which shortly after Luther, Melanchton and Bucero granted leave to simultaneously have TWO LEGITIMATE WOMEN. MARTINHO BUCERO was a Dominican friar; to follow Luther, he gave up his habit and married “In order to die the flesh” He died of plague.
As a professor of theology in England, where he had called Cranmer, he taught that GOD IS THE TRUE AUTHOR of SIN and to him the faults of men must be imputed. CAPTAIN was canon and even dean of the Main Chapter when he declared for reform. He was a close friend of Ecolampadius, whose wife he married when he passed away, no doubt as a good evangelical, "UT SUSCITARET SEMEN FRATRI SUO" (to give him descendants). AMSDORF, to whom Luther had made a bishop, was the head of the ANTINOMIAN SECT who rejected the DECALOGUE because faith was sufficient and that everything justified. Here is how Protestant theologians expound the antinomian teaching: “Whether you are a prostitute or a prankster, adulterer or unrepentant sinner, it is enough to have faith, and you will be on the road to salvation. Though full of sins to the neck, if you believe, you will be saved. Send the commandments to the devil. “Only unbelief makes a bad man, and, as faith alone justifies, no one sins but unbelief” (De Antinomia p.90 and 98) He died, lamenting that all vices, particularly drunkenness, debauchery and usury if they had taken possession of the evangelical people (De Antinomia p. 68 and 77).
Ecolampadius, becoming an apostate, fled the convent, became a disciple of Zwingli, and soon fell in love with a girl he married sacrilegiously, which made Erasmus say: “It seems that the purpose of the reform is to break the habit of some monks. and marry some priests. This great tragedy always ends by a comic event, for it all ends in marriage, as in comedies ”(Dillinger. The Reformation II, p. 113). From that time on, his life had been a fabric of dissimulation, suddenly dying beside the woman he had joined. “Such was,” said Luther, “the sad end of Ecolampadius, deceived by the devil in punishment for his debauchery” (Bossuet Hist. Various I. II. Para. 26) THEODORO BEZA, “alter ego” of Calvin, born in Vezelay of Burgundy, had Wolmar as master, and from a very young age proved to be the libertine who would become. She fled Paris with Madame Claudia, a tailor's wife, and married her in Geneva, her first husband still alive. This woman had to suffer greatly because of the unusual number of the VIRTUES that attended her husband's house (Audin, Hist. Luther, t. II, p.286).
Finally HESHUSIUS writes of Beza as follows: “Beza, because of her depraved customs, was the dishonor of honest disciplines; unhappy that, as a filthy beast, he would be muddled in the mire of the most shameful filthiness, he still wanted to defile the ears of studious youth with his infamy ”(C.Schlusselburg). “Thomas Cranmer (Henry VIII's right-hand man), before being a priest, was married,” says Cobbet, “After being ordained and made a CELIBATE VOTE, residing in Germany, and having become a Protestant, he married, or rather, "joined" a woman "(Filemann Heshusius," Of True and Healthy Confession "). He was appointed bishop of Cantorbery, deceiving Sa Roman and declaring that he was under no obligation to swear his oath of obedience. He was a flatterer of the passions and whims of Henry VIII. In 1535 he proclaimed the annulment of Anne Boleyn's marriage, as he had previously declared the annulment of Catherine of Aragon. And in 1540 he annulled yet another marriage of Henry with Ana de Cleves and, in 1541, another of the king with Catherine Howard.

 

6. CONCLUSION

St. Peter denied Jesus Christ, yet we read his letters and followed his doctrine. St. Paul was a persecutor of the early Christians, yet his epistles are a shining beacon of doctrine. David was a sinner, yet we sang his psalms of measurement. This is all right; But there is an essential difference between these saints and the sad Protestants. The righteous have sinned, but after their lack they have recognized their mistakes and weaknesses, doing strict penance for the rest of their lives, while none of this is in the lives of such reformers. On the contrary, they accumulated madness and crimes on all kinds of vileness, errors on errors, revolts on revolts, indulging in a relaxed and wanton life, without even thinking of penance, denying even the necessity or usefulness of mortification, dying Finally, in the most horrendous despair and hardening. "To such extremes we have come, Melanchton writes, that many have already been convinced that if they fasted one day they would be found dead the next night."
Looking at the last moments of each of these men, one notes with astonishment that, by a just punishment from God, this death was the echo of his life. Luther, says the Protestant Plank, died of a disease that could no longer be his body as an asylum for a soul, long torn by the most vicious passions. (History of the origin of the reformation by Dr. GT Palnk: ed. 1816 P. II. P. 507). Calvin, writes Horenius, ending his life in despair, died of a clumsy and very shameful illness. ..
This I can certify in all truth, because I saw with my eyes its disastrous and tragic end. (John Horenius: Life of Calvin). Zwingli, by Luther's testimony, died and was condemned. (Hospinianus: letter VI. 190). Carlostadt, say the Lutherans, was strangled by the demon. Henry VIII, according to the Englishman Cobbet, a few years before his death, a victim of his debauchery and intemperance, was reduced to a mass of rotting flesh ... and when he was about to die no one dared to disillusion him. and died without suspicion (Cobbel: Op. cit. letter VI. 190). And so, it seems, has happened to the others, all allowing to suspect that he has been disapproved, due to his clumsy life. Jesus Christ, God and man, in founding his immortal Church, the Roman Apostolic Catholic Religion, surrounded himself with simple, ignorant but virtuous men who, except for the traitor Judas, lived holy, died heroically, giving their lives in witness of the Gospel. The once-quoted Protestant scholar Cobbet was not afraid to appreciate the parents of the Reform thus: "Perhaps the world has never seen in a century a trap of such infamous rascals" as these hitherto enumerated. Luther, in attempting his alleged reformation, denies his faith, his priesthood, his oaths of religion, attacks the Pope. insults the bishops, blasphemous, lives miserably in mancebia and is accompanied by, besides his Catherine, wicked, cynical, lost men who seek reform in order to satisfy their evil inclinations, spend their days in the mud and end up in the mud .
And these are the indoctrinators, the models of Protestant reform. Such men left the Catholic Church, either because it was corrupt, or because they were meek. Proving that they were the corrupt ones, as we have just shown, every sensible person must conclude: the reformers were in a terrible moral situation, like a scum of society. Therefore, the Catholic Church was not corrupted, because corruption does not abandon or combat corruption; to be sure, and no one doubts, is that the would-be reformers were the corrupters who abandoned a Holy Church that contradicted their vices. The Catholic Church is. for the true Church of Jesus Christ, while Luther's reformation is the fruit of vice, wickedness, and the devil. There is no other way out for those who are capable of a little reasoning.

 

CHAPTER X

REFORMER'S LAST FIGHTS


We are in the final period of the active life of our biographer. It was 1530. He was forty-seven years old and in vigorous health, performing a feverish activity. His robustly structured body was, however, severely undermined by the extravagances practiced: overeating, drinking, especially anger, so disturbing to the normal functioning of the heart. It does not matter to go through, in its minutiae, all the stages of this busy life; Let us simply point out the essential points whose influence has been felt in some way on the establishment of Protestantism.

1. In the Fortress of Coburg While the quarrels were stirring, and the storm over the reformation roared, Luther found it prudent not to expose his own skin; He retreated under the protection of the Saxe Landgrave in the fortress of Coburg, where he remained for six months until October 1531. From there he directed and encouraged his agents: Melanchton, Justo Jonas, Spalatino and Brenz. In that refuge, the reformer likens himself to a caged tiger, ready to lash out at its prey, open-necked, to devour it, but unable to escape from its bars, merely beating its head against them in an infernal noise (Wachters : Luther p. 272). To frighten the Catholic members of the General Council, he wrote a violent quip: "Warning to the clergy, assembled at the Imperial Council of Augsburg" (Works of Luther, ed. De Weimar 30 II. 208).
Out of revolting haughtiness, the frantic reformer threatened the councilors with a popular revolt if they dared to counteract the expansion of their religious creed. “As I live, I am your plague; after death, I will be your death. For God has excited me against you; I will be unto you, as Hosea says, like a lioness or like a panther in the way of the Assyrians. You will not have peace in my name until you are converted, or you perish. ”Despite the violence of these terms, Luther was uneasy over the decisions of the Imperial Council (Works of Weimar 30, II. 397) which did not interrupt the propaganda begun. The emperor, on June 29, 1541, signed “the Regensburg interim,” in which Protestant chiefs made many promises after they were not executed. New councils met at Nuremberg (1543), at Spíere (1544), at Worms (1545). All of them had no other effect than to patent the widening gap between Catholics and Protestants. Her nervous tension, intemperance, and the violence she gave herself to began to ruin her health; he felt it well, but instead of referring this exhaustion to his incessant dealings and consulting a doctor, he attributed it all to the demon. By the way, this was his old habit of seeing the devil everywhere. He writes to Amsdorf: “As a 47-year-old man I already feel my age weighing heavily on my shoulders as my strength gradually diminishes” (Cor. 8 pp. 301: 31 Oct. 1530).
Luther interpreted a dizziness in his head (dormern in kopf) to be the devil's rage wanting to prevent further reform. Everywhere he saw demons. He had seen in his imagination legions of these infernal spirits in monk's garb driving to Augsburg to guide the imperial council there to work against him ”(Grisar III, 694). In Coburg the wild monk himself referred to the demons that appeared to him and came to keep him in his room. It was a rainy night, around 9 o'clock. Luther stood before the window. Suddenly he saw a flaming serpent, in luminous ripples, launch from the roof of a nearby tower on the garden plantations. Terrified, he immediately summoned Veit Diutrich, his servant, but by the time he arrived he had already dispelled the ghost. Moments later, they both saw a large star in the middle of the field. There is no doubt, reflects the former monk, it is the devil.

 

2. HATE TO THE POPE

After a stay of six months, after the threatened danger was over, Luther left the fortress of Coburg, to resume his teaching role at the University of Wittemberg and continue his propaganda there. Everything was predicting that a moment of peace was imminent in the aftermath of the past struggles by the Nuremberg religious pact of 1532. Unfortunately, all was hopeless hope. Charles V returned to Spain and was due to return to Germany after an absence of 9 years, a fact that was very detrimental to the peace, since the agreement of Nuremberg was without effect. That same year the landgrave João de Saxe passed away, succeeding his son João Frederico, Protestant, as had been the father. Two years later, in 1534, Pope Clement VII left this world, having as a continuation on the throne of St. Peter Pope Clement VIII. The new Pope immediately considered convening a general council to end religious struggles. To this end, he sent his nuncio, Pedro Vergério, to Germany, who obtained nothing more from the landgrave João Frederico than promises. In 1535 the Nuncio paid a visit to Wittemberg, and there he invited Luther and Bugenhagen to a supper offered to him at the landgrave. LUTERO ACCEPTED THE INVITATION, NOT SO MUCH TO TREAT PEACE, BUT MAINLY TO INSULT THE POPE. Extravagantly dressed there appeared with a heavy gold chain around his neck and several brilliant rings on his fingers. What most impressed the Nuncio was the look of the heresiarch, demonstrating something mysterious, almost diabolical, as the Papal envoy later attested. Luther was ill-mannered, rude, and only the idea of ​​a council and possible religious rapprochement was vented, the heretic vehemently exclaimed, "I want to lose my mind if I do not defend my doctrine against the whole world. This wrath my mouth is not mine, but God's. Councils are no more than children's toys or crazy ones. " Then, to divert the conversation and mock Verger, he began to speak of the "venerable nun", his wife, who had given her five children, of whom Hans, the eldest, would be a great preacher of the Gospel "(Grisar, p.370 In 1538 Luther fell sick again, cruelly attacked by a kidney disease, which caused him to suffer acute pain.This time he thought he died ... but despite the approach of eternity, no thought of repentance or peace arose. every word he uttered was a shout of hatred against Rome and the Pope. He continually exclaimed, "I die in hate against the Pope" (Tischredden .; Weimar, 6 November, 6974). of death, in the midst of horrible pain, told the Protestant landgrave that his death was a source of satisfaction to the Pope, who would not rejoice for long.The sepulchral inscription he himself composed and prepared beforehand to be placed upon him. his grave contained the words: “P estis were vivens, moriens ero mors tua, pope ”- In life I was your plague, dying, I will be your death, O Pope!
Wanting the reformer to die among his family, he took advantage of an upgrade to transport himself to Wittemberg. As he embarked, he said good-bye to his friends with these words: “God fill you with his blessings and hatred of the Pope” ODIUM IM PAPAM: This is his dismal inheritance for his friends (Grisar, p.394) and it has always been the distinctive sign of the unfortunate Protestants. Luther this time recovered. Only years later did its final time come.

 

3. HESSE FILIPE BIGAMY

One of the noisiest, perhaps the largest of Luther's scandals was undoubtedly his permission for Hesse's landgrave to live in simultaneous bigamy. As we have seen, Luther wanted to support his reform on the protection of princes. It is a truth recognized by Protestant historians:
"The reform introduced by Luther was first of all a political work (Grisar, II. 282-346 and Paquier Kol 1177) a revolt prompted by economic factors." "What the princes wanted was to seize ecclesiastical goods and to exercise absolute religious and political authority in their states." The bigamy award, granted by Luther and companions to the landgrave of Hesse, once again proves this sad truth. The feet. Leonel Franca summed up the case very well, in a nutshell: Philip, prince of depraved manners, not content with his legitimate wife, of whom he had seven children, also wanted to marry Margarida de la Sale, bridesmaid of his Sister Izabel.
Margarida's mother eventually consented to this scandalous union, as long as the marriage was attended by Luther, Melanchton, Bucero, Cristina, wife of the landgrave, Ernesto Miltiz, the young woman's uncle, the elector of Saxony and Duke Maurice, these two. the latter by themselves or their representatives. Philip accepted the clause and immediately set out to obtain the consent of the great reforming evangelicals. In 1539 Bucero sent a long instruction that was to be communicated to Luther and Melanchton. It's an explanatory statement. Her life, confesses the landgrave, “... is scandalous; but only with his wife he can't even WANT TO CHANGE LIFE ...
Often he must take part in the assemblies of the empire, where the diversions abound ... he cannot dispense with a woman; and getting a high quality one would be very embarrassing. ” But as a good Christian, he wants nothing to do against Scripture; He consulted the Bible and found that "neither God in the Old Testament, nor Jesus Christ in the New Testament, nor the Prophets, nor the Apostles forbid anyone to have two wives." Moreover, the fact was not unheard of, the landgrave knew "that Luther and Melanchton had advised the King of England to take a second wife" as seen in his MOTIVATED CONSULTATION. (The landgrave was well informed.
In his memoir of August 27, 1531, “From Bigamia Regis Angliae” had written Melanchton: “If the king who provides for the succession of the throne is best done without infamy of the first marriage. It can achieve this, without any danger to anyone's conscience or fame, through polygamy ”(Corpus Ref. II. 526). Luther tuned for the same tuning fork. Henry "... could marry another queen like the patriarchs who had several wives" (Enders. IV, 88).
Finally, in the event that they still hesitated, the landgrave threatened to "... seek the emperor's consent" with whom he could obtain whatever he wanted by asking his ministers. And this step would be detrimental "to the interests of the Church": "the imperial ministers could take the opportunity to lead him to any action that would not be useful to this cause (reform) and this party." For all these reasons, he begged them to give him written consent in order to “be able to approach in good conscience and to treat the business of our religion with greater freedom and confidence”.
In long consultation, signed by Luther, Melanchton, Bucero, and 6 other theologians and addressed to the “most serene Prince and Lord”, after pointing out the drawbacks of the public scandal that could ensue and urging the landgrave to another less risky solution and more Christian, the signatories finally concluded: “If His Highness is entirely determined to take a second wife, we think he should do so in secret. The Emperor should not resort; if his faith is in the Pope's way, he will treat your Highness's proposal as ridiculous ... he has nothing of German custom ... it is to wish that no Christian prince will ally with his pernicious designs. " Needless to say, the landgrave was "entirely determined to take a second wife."
On April 5 he writes to Luther “in the calm and joy of a good conscience”, and accompanies the thanks with a barrel of good Rhine wine. On May 24 the austere reformer answers him humbly; "I have received the gift of your Grace, the Rhine wine barrel, and I offer you my humble thanks." Projected second wedding took place on March 4.
Dignisio Melandro, another retired friar, who was already valiantly with his third wife, still celebrated him with dignity, still alive the first two. Bucero, Melanchton, the theologians and court counselors attended. Margarida's uncle Ernesto de Miltiz lacked, “because he was a papist and, as such, not sufficiently versed in Holy Scripture to accept before God the legitimacy of a double marriage” (Lens, Briefwechsel Langraf Philipps des Grossmuthigen von hessen thousand Bucer , Leipsig, 1880-1887, T. I. 330-332).

 

4. CRAZY OR POSSESSION

The life we ​​go on in history still bears the usual distinctive: a true anti-papal frenzy, an unquenchable aversion to the Catholic Church, and a restless action in the spread of evil. "One who tells a lie," says the wise adage, "is obliged to invent a hundred others to support the first." This is quite the case with the unfortunate reformer. He began to err and, in order to defend his error, did not cease to wander until he had nothing more to do with the Catholic religion. In the name of the Bible, He suppressed the Bible; and in the name of the Gospel, he liquidated the work of Christ.
His nightmare, his most impressive and impulsive dream was to vibrate the death blow to Romanism; and here is the Church of Rome, suddenly lifting its head, more radiant and beautiful than ever. The rumor of a general council meeting began to circulate to condemn the errors. Protestants Luther shivered in horror. Like another Samson, the poor old reformer (already 55), almost out of date, would like to be able to throw himself against the pillars of Catholicism, to bury the Pope under its ruins. In his insatiable desire for revenge he takes the penalty and begins to write a disgusting pamphlet by the same name: "My will to the German nation, which is: AGAINST ROME'S FOUNDED BY THE DEVIL" (Grisar and Huge: Kampf Bilder, p. 36). The dominant idea is this: The papacy arose from hell, and the sovereignty of its action is due to the devilish powers. Let's quote just a few sentences of this rude testament. If man is to be judged by his ideas, it must be confessed that Luther is a true source of filth; says a contemporary writer: style is man; In this way, it will inevitably be concluded that Luther is either a possession or a madman. “The Pope is the head of the cursed churches, the worst of all thieves on earth; He is a substitute for the devil, the enemy of God, revolt against Christ, a disturber of the Church, a doctor of lies, blasphemies and atheism, arch-thief of the churches, thief of keys, murderer, son of corruption: who does not want to believe this, Run to the devil with your God and your Pope.
I, as an inspired preacher and preacher in the church of Christ, must tell the truth, and so I do. ”“ Fortunately I am alive, I Dr. Martin Luther, educated in the papal school and donkey stable, became a doctor of theology; Already as a wise man and as a doctor, I can witness how high, wide and long the science of Holy Scripture is. ” What always stands out is the infamous desire, the thirst for destruction of Rome and the Papacy. Speaking, in the above-mentioned writing, of the punishments desired by the Pope, he says: “The sentence for the Pope and his supporters should be: Pull their tongue from behind their neck and nail them to the gallows where they are. suspended in line, like their seals on the package inserts. They can then assemble a council in the gallows or in hell among the devils. ” “See,” he exclaims, “how my blood and my flesh boils. As I wish to see the Papacy punished, although I do not know that there is sufficient temporal punishment for a bull or a decree. ” To give these insults more weight, Luther had his most infamous and satirical caricatures engraved by his friend Cranach to illustrate his pamphlet, which fortunately never ended.
All of this can only be concluded: even at the end of his days the hatred demon still persecuted him, as phantasmagoria follows the unbalanced poor. In PERKHEIMER's expression, Luther was that: A POSSESS or a CRAZY.

 

5. CONCLUSION

It is fatal and logical to deduce every spirit possessed of common sense: neither does an envoy of God speak or act. Had Catholicism been a bit of a vice, according to Luther, would it be that, in order to transform it and persuade its followers to leave sin and error, God would have had someone who spoke with satirical sayings, sticky sarcasms, untimely wraths, petty slander?
It's not impossible. He wants the sinner to be converted and to live. One cannot want to build by accumulating ruins and destroying evil. Such a process would be repugnant to the divine goodness and wisdom that disposes things according to ends, with weight, measure, and prudence. Moreover, when God sends a reformer into the world to root out certain abuses, He always chooses a man whose example is the living representation of the lessons to be given, or the antidote of vice to combat. Luther accused the Catholic Church of being impure, self-interested, persecuting; However, he, Luther, gives for his life the saddest and most shameful example of the vices pointed out and accused by others. If he came to combat corruption and morality, he should, like the divine teacher, do and teach: COEPIT JESUS ​​FACERE ET DOCERE (Acts 1: 1) However, the reformer practiced the whole caste of sins and defects, and even recommended them to others, advising them, as we saw above. Jesus Christ counsels us to be meek and humble and heartfelt (St. Matthew 11:29) and Luther appeared to us with boundless pride and unrestrained revenge. Jesus prescribes chastity, continence, modesty - Modestia, continentia et catitas (Galat. V. 23).
Luther calls chastity a crime, continence a Roman invention, modesty a hypocrisy. Jesus exhorts us to prayer, penance, and good works: POENITENTICAM AGITE (St. Matthew 3: 2). INSTANT ORATIONI (Colossians 4: 2) BONA OPERA OSTENDI (St. John 10:32) while Luther did not pray, despised penitential practices, and denied the necessity of good works. Jesus encourages us to combat our defects, the mortification of the flesh, the holiness of life. MEAT YOUR CRUCIFIXERUNT WITH VITIALS (Galatians 15, 24) SANCTI ERITIS (1 Peter, 1:16); Luther, on the other hand, is dominated by the vices of meat, table, drink, not even following the dictates of natural law. Oh no! Luther was not an envoy of God, but only a revolting, vicious spirit, a reprobate, hostile to God and the true Church, virtue and humanity. Hence, it is deduced to be the sect founded by him a human, devilish thing, and an instrument of perdition for souls.

 

CHAPTER XI

LAST DAYS AND DEATH OF LUTERO


We have reached the end of this busy life. The years and the illnesses gradually shook his health; Clumsy and animalistic habits had long been ruining his rude body. However, if his body was depleted, his spirit was still lucid, and the call of hatred, the "mainspring" of his action, had not fallen in intensity. He reacts against all unrest and carries on his work of demolition, until death prostrates him and makes him known forever, in the face of future generations, as heresiarch of the sixteenth century, the sad successor of those who, through the ages, They disturbed the Catholic Church through various divisions, and whose memory is the expression of hatred and vice: Arius, Pelagius, Nestorius, Eutychius, Muhammad, Photius, and the father of Protestantism. Let us follow Luther in his last days of life.

 

1. THE TERRIBLE MAN

To his followers Luther wanted to leave his will of hatred against the Supreme Pontiff. Cameçous, but did not carry it through, because the disease, urgent travels and, after all, the death, did not leave him the necessary time to complete this work, the last proof of his spiritual ravings. The hatred of hatred, instead of cooling down in the face of death threats, seemed to become more violent, trying to engage all who disagreed with his direction. The theologians at the University of Leuven had the unprecedented courage to refute in 32 articles the main mistakes of the innovator. Luther saw this as an unforgivable crime and said: “I am furious against these four-legged Leuven, who intend to teach me an old and so distinguished theologian; I want to teach these Satan monsters a lesson, even if it costs me my last breath. ” And indeed the answer was not waited; appeared coarse, proud, in 76 theses, with this title: "TELL THE LOVAINA THEOLOGISTS." “Such theses,” says Kohler, “are more insulting than instructive,” and show their author's inclination of intelligence. “The terrible man,” as Melanchton calls him in a letter to Cameroon, “with his violent attacks cannot stand the slightest opposition; gets angry, insults, rages like a demoniac. Oh, if at least Luther shut up, Melanchton continues, “But there's no way. I hoped that old age and the experience of mistakes made would soften his genius, but the opposite happens, he becomes increasingly violent in struggle and opposition ”(Corresp. Ref. I. p. 794).
Shortly afterwards the theologians at the University of Paris also raised their voices to combat the erroneous doctrines of the reformer. A new fight would take place at first; Luther struggled to answer, but only wrote the epigraph of the writing and short remarks. The disease made the feather fall from his hands. The title of the new quibbler, which was not made, is suggestive and allows us to evaluate the author's state of nervousness: "AGAINST PARIS AND LOVAINA DONKEYS" The reformer feels downcast, neurasthenic, irritated against himself and others: "I am disgusted with men," he exclaimed one day, "and the world is disgusted with me." “No one can imagine, he said, how much it costs and what a torment it is for a man to persuade to believe in a doctrine that the Fathers of the Church do not admit. What a stir in their hearts to think that so many excellent, enlightened, learned, and, as it were, most of the Christian world, believed and taught such and such an article, and with them so many healthy souls: the Ambrose, the Jerome , the Augustines! It seems to me to hear them, in a cry of anguish, repeat in chorus: The Church! The church!...
And the soul envelops me in supreme pain. Oh, it is indeed a harsh proof to separate one from so many holy personages! ... break with the Church itself, and no longer have faith and confidence in one's teachings. ” He writes elsewhere: “It amazes me not to have full confidence in my doctrine. Because of her I became an enemy of myself, while my disciples think they know it at their fingertips. ” Such were Luther's intimate thoughts in the quiet and reflective hours. Soon, however, it returned to its previous state. Above all, he despaired of the growing evil that was pervading society. “The world is full of satan and satanic men,” he writes in an intimate letter. “Business will go bad when I'm not here anymore. More than one 'mane, weaver' is engraved on the walls of the renovation. Examined, one by one, "My helpers, I find no trustworthy."

 

2. Dislikes and remorse

Expressing his displeasure and remorse, he writes every moment at the end of his life: “The world gets worse every day and the meaner it gets. Men are now more vindicated by revenge, more miserly, more merciless, less modest, more incorrigible and worse than in papism. How scandalous it is to see, after the advent of reform, that the world goes daily from bad to worse. The nobles and the rustics even say they don't need preaching, nor do they have to pay a penny for all our sermons together ... They live as they believe, they are and they become pigs, and they die as such. There are still more deplorable sores: the shepherds, yes, the shepherds themselves who rise to the pulpit, are today the most shameful examples of wickedness and other vices. Hence their sermons have no more credit, no more authority than the fables recited by a histrion. And these gentlemen dare complain of being scorned and ridiculed. For myself, I marvel at the patience of the people, and I don't know how children and people do not cover them with mud. ” Speaking of the corruption of the people of Wittemberg, he cried one day publicly: “Let us flee from this Sodom. I'd rather go begging my bread than poisoning my last days, seeing Wittemberg's clutter. I am disgusted with the world ... and the world is disgusted with me; and it makes me happy. It's time to retire. ”Leaving Wittemberg was his wish. In 1544 he tried to leave, but his friends persuaded him to give up the plan, but it was only for a short time, and in late July, without warning, sneaked out of town with his son Hans and a couple of friends. : Fernando von Maups and Cruciger their fellow travelers to the next city of Zeitz. From Zeitz he wrote to his asians: “My heart is a little refreshed; I don't like to stay there anymore! ”In this same letter, he expressed his desire to sell his house and garden in Wittenberg and to live in Zulsdorf where he had a small property. He wanted to end his life there, because, he said later, “after my death, the people will not stand my widow in Wittemberg.” When the Protestant chiefs became aware of these plans, they immediately asked him to return, and the his presence in Wittemberg absolutely necessary to maintain the peace and to favor the extension of the reform. Luther was convinced and returned to that city. He later left again, going to Mansfeld, to do business with the landgrave. In the midst of these comings and goings, your letters express the same boredom, the same desperation of life. Luther feels inexplicable uneasiness, which is nothing but the increasingly fierce remorse in his troubled conscience as death approaches.

 

3. LAST TRIP

On January 23, 1546, Luther went to close negotiations with the landgrave Albert Mansfeld's family in Eusleben. He traveled with his three children, their tutor and his friend Aurifaber, the future compiler of his table talks. For three days he stopped at Halle at his friend Jonas's house because of the flooding of the Saale River. Then he wrote to Catherine on January 25: “We did not want to rush in and tempt God, for the devil, our enemy, resides in the water, and then I do not want to see the Pope rejoicing at the news of my death ”(Letters 5. p. 780).
The next day he preached in Halle, with all the vehemence allowed by his age and illness, against the Pope, the cardinals, the monks, who despite all their exhortations and threats, had become true to their duties and their religion. Lowering the waters of the river on the 28th, Luther crossed it with Jonah and continued the journey to Eisleben; noticing that the flood was still quite strong, the reformer joked to Jonas, "Dear friend, wouldn't it be very pleasant to the devil if I, Doctor Martinho, with my three children and you drowned here?" Not drowned, but death sent you a notice of your upcoming sale. The weather was cold, and an icy wind blew over the travelers, causing goose bumps on the old Luther who was uncomfortable with dizziness and difficulty breathing. He comforted himself, however, and said to his companion, “It is the devil who has done this to me; he usually does this every time I want to do something important ”(Hausrath 2, p. 493).
When they arrived at Eisleben, he wrote mockingly and superstitiously to the Jews, numerous in the place where it had happened to him to cool off: “You have stirred up this coldness, which blew from behind the chariot and penetrated through my cap to the brain” ( Letters to Catherine, 5, p.783-1). During his stay in Eisleben, Luther came almost daily to watch the lake skaters. From there he wrote humorous letters, inciting an imminent repression against the Jews, always averse to their reform. He preached there 4 times and ordained two priests at the Supper "according to apostolic use," he says.
On February 14, to her friend and dear Catarina, she announced that the landgrave business she had been dealing with had been completed and intended to return that same week. On the 16th, entertaining himself at the table on his return trip, he mockingly exclaimed something that had happened, it seems, by divine punishment: “When I am back in Wittemberg, I will lie down on a scaffold and feed the worms a fat doctor! ”(Erling. 61, 437). The next day, 17, the first symptoms of stroke had been declared that the next day would suddenly fulminate him. He spent the day troubled, restless, feeling like an iron hand clutching his throat without letting him nearly breathe. He paced from one place to another, sometimes standing, sometimes lying, sometimes leaning to the window for better breathing. He saw as if a burial cloth lay before him; strange noises stunned her ears; spectral spectra populated his imagination. Everything seemed to be God's last warning. Then he said, "I was baptized here in Eisleben, who knows if I should not stay here?" The last hour, the moment of the "great trip," was approaching ...

 

4. MYSTERIOUS DEATH

Nothing more difficult than describing the death of the reformer. There are so many captions and stories about this fact; many writers have dealt with the subject, so the impartial historian does not know who to believe. There is a mystery about this death. The reason for this turmoil is as follows:
In Luther's time, as even today, the idea was already ingrained that a wicked man must necessarily die a restless, painful, cruel death; and the people will not admit that a reprobate person may die quiet and peaceful in his bed of pain. “Such a life, such a death” It is certain; But it is good to note; such death refers to the fate of the soul and not to the kind of death of the body.
It is possible for a criminal sometimes to have a mild, comforted death, and lose his soul; like a predestined, a saint, to have a painful, agonized overthrow, and his soul to fly straight to the sky. It cannot be denied that Luther was a wicked, corrupt, vengeful, revolting man, delivered to the lowest instincts; and, according to the opinion quoted, the equivalent death was reserved for him. Protestants accuse Catholics of surrounding the last moments of their reformer with unproven details, perhaps exaggerating the truth. It's possible. It cannot be attested that the proportions of the case have been increased, as it is not certain otherwise. On the other hand, Protestants, both those who witnessed the death of their boss, and those who emerged later, had every reason to present it as a predestined outcome. Catholics tended to be overly strict, and Protestants to overindulgence. To avoid discussions without evidence, each one therefore adopted the opinion most consistent with his own ideas. I wish to be impartial; Therefore, without definitively adopting this or that narration, I will briefly cite the various ways of thinking. The first opinion, the most followed among Catholics and Protestants, is as follows:
Having Luther decided to return to Wittemberg, although he was already broken, sick and tired, he invited his friends to a feast. By the afternoon of the seventeenth day the chief had shown a slight improvement, temporarily recovering his old humor and mocking spirit. They ate, drank, sang; and, to please the guests, Luther did not fail to drink enough of Eisleben's good wine. It seems, among the vapors of alcohol, to forget about his unhealthy state.
Late at night the diners withdrew, leaving only Luther, Justus Jonas, owner of the house, his private servant, and a son. Driven to his room, Luther sat on a couch, ordering the servant to withdraw because he no longer needed his services.
What happened on this tremendous night? Only God knows it. In the morning, as Luther lingered longer than usual in his room, the servant knocked on his door, but received no answer, not the slightest noise. Knowing the servant the state of his master and fearing any catastrophe, he called Justus Jonah and Luther's son, and opened the door, not closed from within. And a more hideous and gruesome scene then offered itself to his eyes. In the middle of the room, between the furniture and the bed, Luther's body was sprawled on the floor .... his livid, bluish face, his eyes and mouth wide open, his arms outstretched, his abdomen swollen from his insides. around the body. It was a corpse. The righteous hand of God had prostrated him who had blasphemed him for so many years in the person of his representative visible on earth. Luther was already in eternity: excommunicated, heretic, apostate, sacrilegious, his hands blood-stained and his soul wrapped in grudges against the Pope and the Church of Christ. Sad...
Very sad luggage to appear before the Court of God! Just Jonas and the servant, in the sight of the corpse, already in the process of decomposition, its entrails spilled on the ground, recoiled in amazement, while Hans Luther let out a shrill scream, dropping to his knees near his father to see if he was really dead. . There was no doubt; they had a cold, rigid body before them; they lifted him and laid him on the couch, one of them going to the pharmacist Landau to check on his death.
Luther had died, victimized by a fit of fulminant stroke, perhaps from the indigestion of food and drink at the last banquet. The would-be reformer of the Church had died as he had lived: as a trivial gastronome. The measure of divine justice was full, and the one who in life had called himself a "plague" for the Pope, and who, when dying would be his death, was only the plague of the sect founded by him, in whose history it represents a black spot. : his disappearance was not the death of the Pope, but the spiritual disgrace of his sectarians. Luther died; the Papacy does not die, because Christ is eternal. Father Leonel Franca, whose sincerity and historical science are indisputable, adopts the same opinion and concludes: “Thus, as an ordinary gastronome and libertine, the apostate who claimed to be a reformer of Christianity was silent” (The Church, the Reformation and the civilization, page 200, quoting Paulus: Luther lebesende, Mainz 1896, page 5). “In the hierarchy of the rebel angels, though it causes sorrow to his friends,” says another renowned writer, “Luther occupies the lowest degree, closest to the slime and the swamp” (Th. Mainage: Témoignages des apostats. Paris 1916, p. 76).

 

5. OTHER OPINIONS

Among the various accounts of the ancients, the one I have just quoted is the most universally accepted by both sincere Protestants and Catholics. A second opinion is that Luther was taken seriously: it is based on a CREATED LETTER that assisted him on the day of his death. According to this letter, all present, the day after they met Luther HURRY, had obliged by Oath, in honor of the new doctrine, never to speak of the scene witnessed.
Having later abjected the Protestant error, they assert that the servant revealed the fact. It was at the beginning of the 17th century, in 1606, when the text of Luther's servant's letter was first mentioned, mentioned in a book by the Franciscan Henry Edulius, published in Antwerp. What is the value of this document? It is hard to say; It is certain that it was not generally accepted by poster historians; neither its authenticity nor its falsity has been well proven. Protestants reject such an opinion as "slanderous; it is natural, for it would be to them a dark stain in life and death, already so foul of its founder. They would be spiritual children of a suicide, of a hanged by his own hands. The Franciscan spreader of this letter, as well as a worthy historian, is a man of virtue recognized in such a way that its sincerity cannot be suspected, but it is possible that the document published by him has a less sincere source. It is not for us to discuss this opinion, as we do not have enough supporting documents, for or against. A third opinion was issued by landgrave's doctor, dr. RATZBERG, called at the time of Luther's death. This doctor, according to the first opinion, admits the stroke, the fall and the leakage of the intestines, but adds that, on the eve of his death, before going to bed at night, he had written with chalk on the wall of his Fourth, the well-known verse: "Pope, I was your plague during my life; dying, I will be your death." If the existence of the inscription has not been proved, it is certain to have been pronounced and written by him in other known circumstances and the true expression of his hateful sentiments to the Pope. (In the library of Groningen [Netherlands] there is also a commentary on the New Testament of Erasmus, in which Luther wrote with his own fist on the inner side of the cover, this blasphemous). A fourth opinion, of clearly Protestant origin, claims that Luther died a natural death without aggravating accident by reciting Bible verses. It is said that after the banquet, where he had eaten and drunk abundantly, without feeling anything unusual, he had retired early to his room and was suddenly attacked by heart trouble.
Having rubbed himself with warm cloths, he improved, and slept peacefully one part of the night. At dawn the same restlessness manifested itself again. Two doctors were called, but by the time they entered, they found him lying on the couch with an imperceptible wrist and his forehead covered with the sweat of death. Coming back, moments later, they claim to have said, "My God, I feel so agonized, I'm going to die." Jonah, his assistant, says that he then said a prayer, thanking God for giving him Jesus Christ, which he had preached, while the wretched Pope and all the wicked blaspheme. Jonah asked if he wanted to persevere in the religion he had preached, Luther answered yes: and uttering this last word, he died shortly after, at 3 am on February 18, 1546.
The falseness of this last opinion made by his friends is clearly seen to conceal anything they did not want to be known. This Protestant opinion, rather than weakening, confirms the opinion of Catholic writers. The words quoted are not of a dying man, and the instant death that follows them does not match the words spoken; for there is always a moment of agony, unless it is an apoplectic attack that prostrates the person. Visible ellipses appear ... and words dictated by interest to impress. Luther left in this world, as a result of his sacrilegious marriage, 5 children, 3 men and 2 women, having died a girl 8 months old. According to a Catholic Reviera report, there are 20 families in North America named after Luther, who are Catholic. A Benedictine, Luis Luther, has recently celebrated Requiem's ​​Mass for his father Sebastião Lutero, a straight descendant of Martin Luther, the fourth son of the "Reformer" himself.

 

6. LUTERO'S BURIAL

Luther's body, badly disfigured and badly borne by the bystanders, was transported on the 20th to HALLE, and on the 22nd at dawn to WITTEMBERG, where, by order of the landgrave, it was to be buried in the church by the pulpit from which it had been. sown the seed of revolt.
The writers of the time say that, as he was transported there, the stench of the corpse became so pervasive and unbearable that the porters were often coerced and left for some time alone in the middle of the fields. can breathe some fresh air. They also claim to have a flock of crows, enticed by decay, followed by the gloomy courtship, as if they were a demon setting up an honor guard for one of their chiefs. Such were the various opinions conveyed about the death and burial of the founder of Protestantism. Will there be any exaggeration in these narrations? It is hard to say; I was only able to reproduce what the contemporaries narrated about it. That Justus Jonah, Celius, Aurifaber, and probably Luther's sons kept silent about the fact is natural, for the truth would be the demoralization of his friend's person, his father, and even the reformation he had preached and that they same followed. And so, according to the testimony quoted, that all swore to reveal nothing of the death of their chief; This is also why so many mysteries and uncertainties were shrouded in a death that should be known to all.

 

7. CONCLUSION

Luther descended to the grave like any mortal; and, unfortunately, it seems to have ended unrepentant: the soul poisoned by spiteful feelings, the heart misplaced by human passions, the spirit obsessed with the false idea of ​​a design that destined him for reformer. The existence of the Wittemberg hero baffles the most astute psychologist; it is a contradictory complex and a sad accumulation of idleness and activity, obsession and strength, lowness and elevation, but all this, so intertwined, that one wants to delineate its physiognomy, one necessarily comes to that of one of His contemporaries: "Luther is a madman or a victim of diabolical influence." This same concept about the father of Protestant sects is growing stronger in my mind. Deluded by fleeting successes, which circumstances favored, he thought himself a genius, a star, a herald of heaven.
Unrelenting death laid its audacity as a deformer in the grave, but the spirit of revolt that had swept the world, the hatred of the Pope, which had ignited in souls, continued, establishing the fundamental creed of Protestantism. A man who boasts of unprejudiced reasoning would have to stop at this horrifying picture, as he stands before Judas's gallows, and instinctively exclaim: No, the truth is not here; I can only stand before evil, before vice, perdition ... and the truth is still with Jesus Christ, even if he is before Caiphaz, Pilate or Herod ...
The truth is with him, exclusively with him and his successors: the immortal Pope of Rome, successor of St. Peter, visible representative of the invisible Christ. To make this truth palpable, God allowed Luther to be buried the same day the Catholic people celebrated the feast of the "Cathedra Petri", the day commemorating the founding of the Pope's primacy ... the date the Church sings the Savior's words. to Peter, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall never prevail against it" (St. Matthew 16:18).
Luther sought to prevail against the Church ... but ended up crushed under the weight of Peter's rock; and the Pope continues, as always, blessing his children and begging God to have mercy on his persecutors.

 

CHAPTER XII

Counter-Reform

Luther descended to the grave after a troubled and remorseful death. From him, as from Judas, one can repeat the word of Jesus Christ: "Bonum erat ei natus non fuisset" - It would have been better for him if he had not been born (Matt. 26,24). His life, so sad and so low, was like the titanic struggle of hell against Peter's indestructible rock. Luther fell ... defeated ... like Julian the apostate ... and, like him, perhaps muttering: Peter, you have overcome, as the emperor had shouted: You have won, Nazarene!
Yes, Rome, the indestructible, has conquered ... as it has always been victorious ... and while in Wittemberg they entrusted to earth the remains of the decaying reformer, the Papacy, full of life and glory, raised its forehead. And with that hand which death cannot take down, he built the greatest and most beautiful monument of the Christian life: The Great Council of Trent. We cannot silence this Catholic reaction in the name of faith and truth, which may be called reform.

 

1. The Council of Trent

As we have seen in the development of the adventures of the disgusting existence of the rebellious monk, voices have been raised from the outset calling for a GENERAL COUNCIL, judging indeed to be opportune, to resolve disputes and restore the unity of faith which was attempting to crumble. Great difficulties, however, opposed the projected achievement. Pope Paul III regarded the conciliar meeting as the chief mission of his pontificate; but the troubled times, the disunity among the authorities, the continual upheavals and upheavals of the Protestants did not allow him to realize such just aspiration. The cities of Mantua and Vicence had been designated as a meeting center, which was not held there; it was not until 1542 that the choice of the city of Trent became possible, also without result; thus the definitive convocation was to 1545, the year Luther began to feel the first health quakes. The first Advent sessions were held this year, with a small number of attendants. Every effort has been made to make this assembly one of the most important in the history of the Church: five Popes have successively directed the work of the Council in exceptionally severe circumstances.
The subjects dealt with, the decisions taken, are still the norm for the Christian society. The Council was twice interrupted, first due to the turmoil of the times, and then because of the struggles between France and Germany. The Council consisted of 25 sessions attended by over 200 Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops, 7 Superiors General of Orders, and a large number of representatives of Bishops absent for serious reasons. The Protestant chiefs, invited to the meeting, refused to attend. Six reform doctors later falsified the conciliar acts in their so-called Magdeburg Centuries. Cantu rightly writes of the meeting of Trent: “Never more majestic monument was built by a more august assembly, based on traditional teaching and ancient discipline.
No mistake has been spared in these decrees of faith, so clearly formulated as to preclude any misunderstanding and made so rigorously that they admit no subterfuge. ” There is no fruitful improvement whether or not it has been included in these canons and decrees, so well designed that they bend admirably to the needs of time, adapting to social change.
At the same time the Council dealt with dogma and morals, or doctrine and reform, thereby publishing dogmatic and disciplinary decrees prepared by private committees, then discussed at public meetings and then individually voted. The Council of Trent was the deadly shot at Protestantism that has since been nothing but a walking dead man, forced desperately to cling to the civil authorities so as not to fall into immediate decay. Instead of refuting Luther's mistakes one by one, it is enough to cite the various Tridentine decisions, to know the Protestant objections and the clear and unmistakable response dictated by the priests and published in the then organized catechism, which is perhaps the code. more theological, simpler and clearer to date published on the subject under discussion. The decrees of that assembly can be reduced to nine, restoring the attacked truth against the errors introduced by the deformity of the apostate of Wittemberg.

 

2. SACRED WRITING AND TRADITION

The central point of Protestantism, the principle that would lead him to all the worst abuses, was the FREE EXAMINATION of Holy Scripture. All can be Popes, all are inspired by the Holy Spirit, apart from the Pope, such was Luther's great rule. Now with such a principle there was no error in the world that could not wrap itself in the pages of the Holy Book. It was therefore urgent to restore the truth and clearly determine the only true way to interpret the Bible. The Council began by fixing the canon of the catalog of inspired books, establishing the Rule of interpretation. Thus reads the first decree: “The Holy Council of Trent, ecumenical and general, legitimately assembled under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, considering that the truths of faith and the rules of customs are contained in written books, or when not written, if find in the traditions received by the Apostles from the mouth of Jesus Christ Himself, or conveyed by the apostles, as the Holy Spirit had dictated them, coming to us from hand to hand, receiving according to the example of the Orthodox priests, all the books of either Old, that of the New Testament, as well as the traditions concerning the faith and customs preserved by unbroken succession, and embracing them with equal sense of respect and piety. ”All the VULGATA books were later proclaimed authentic, and the edition approved. Vulgate magazine as authorizing public discussions and lectures. Condemning the BOOK INTERPRETATION of the Bible, the Council expressly stated, under penalty of anathema; “No one, because of blind trust, dares to divert the Holy Scripture to its particular sense or to find an interpretation opposite to the Holy Church, who has the exclusive right to interpret the true meaning of Scripture, according to the unanimous sentiment of the Fathers. ”(Session IV).

 

3. THE ORIGINAL SIN

In Protestant theory, original sin completely spoiled our nature; hence the double and monstrous nonsense: “There is no more free will in us, and all our works are evil; useless, therefore, to strive to do good deeds. ” The Council clearly states the Catholic truth: “In transgressing the law of God, Adam lost the holiness and justice in which he was created; He drew the wrath of God upon Himself, became the slave of the devil, and was subject to death. The first man, however, did not only harm himself; He transmitted to his posterity sin, which is the ruin of the soul, and with sin pain and death. This sin cannot be erased only by the forces of nature, but by the merits of Jesus Christ, the only Mediator, who reconciled us to God by his blood; These merits of Jesus Christ are applied to both adults and children through the Sacrament of Baptism. Baptism is necessary to all, according to the word of our Lord. By the grace of Baptism, the stain of original sin is truly forgiven and erased. The Council recognizes, however, and confesses that lusts remain in those who have been baptized, in them becoming an antagonist against whom it must fight, without ever leaving those who bravely resist it with the weakness of NS Jesus Christ ”(Session V). . The Council has expressly expressed that it does not include in this decree the Virgin Mary, Mother of God.

 

4. JUSTIFICATION

Luther's opinion was that man is justified only by faith in Jesus Christ, Calvin intended that the man thus sanctified becomes impeccable and can no longer lose grace. The Council discovered us in the full light of truth. He admitted faith as the root, source, and something indispensable for justification, but not as the ONLY CONDITION, for one must still keep the commandments and do good works. With the practice of the latter, grace grows and, contrary to Protestant doctrine, is lost through sin; so far from having this unflappable confidence in our salvation, we cannot, as long as this mortal life lasts, presume from our predestination to eternal salvation, for no one is sure of its final salvation. Truth is, if the sanctifying grace is lost, man can recover it by the sacrament of penance, which is the second saving tablet after the wreck; but this requires contrition, sacramental confession when possible, and satisfaction. Finally, justice attained, or recovered, can and must be increased by prayer, mortification, the observance of God's law, and the precepts of the Gospel. God does not ask us for the impossible, and His help is sure for those who humbly and confidently implore Him (Session VI).

 

5.Sacraments in General

Earlier Pope Eugene IV gave an admirable presentation of the doctrine of the sacraments in his Decree to the Armenians. The Council did not find it necessary to repeat this explanation, but merely to indicate their number, their divine institution, their sanctifying virtue, and their effectiveness, regardless of the minister's holiness. Concerning Baptism, the Anabaptists demanded its renewal for adults, on the pretext of not being a child capable of producing an act of faith; On the other hand, Luther, by giving the widest doors to apostates who deserted from the convents, had declared that only the promises of baptism were binding and nullified all other, even later, vows. Confirmation remained, as it always had been, the true sacrament of the new law and the bishops its ordinary minister (Session VII). The other sacraments, fought more violently by Protestant doctrines, were the subject of more thorough study and more extensive definitions.

 

6. THE EUCHARIST

The reform presented an inexplicable babble about the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar. The Council with a shrewdness and assurance, where the breath of the Holy Spirit was sensitive, affirmed that precision to the contested truth. In the first fight solemnly stated the REAL PRESENCE: - “After the consecration of bread and wine, Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true Man, is contained, true, real and substantially, under the appearances of these sensible things, according to their own. words of Jesus Christ referred to in the Holy Gospel. Jesus Christ is under the kind of bread, and under each of its parts, not only at the moment of Communion, but permanently. Luther believed in the real presence, but not in the transformation of the species. The Council opposed her Catholic faith: “By consecration a conversion of all the substance of bread into the substance of the body of our Lord is made; and of every substance of wine in his blood; and this change is called by the Catholic Church: TRANSUBSTANCIATION. The Holy Fathers then declared that it is a godly use to ascribe to the divine Eucharist a solemn worship, the cult of worship, for Jesus Christ is God, as is the Father (Session XIII).
The Council maintained the doctrine that I held that Communion under the two kinds was not necessary for the simple faithful; He asserted that he has beams and plausible reasons for giving communion only under the kind of bread, which the Christian thus receives to the whole of Jesus Christ, and children, up to the age of disintegration, have no obligation to commune (Session 21).
As for the holy sacrifice of the Mass, the Council recalled its divine institution by Our Lord on the eve of his death. The Mass is a true sacrifice; It is merciful to both the living and the dead. It is offered only to God, as it is the act of worship par excellence; but in him remembrance of the saints is made, to thank God for the graces which he has bestowed upon them, and thus to merit the valuable help of his intercession with the Almighty. The prayers of the Mass were carefully determined to stimulate the piety of the faithful. All ceremonies were set to the same end. Finally, private masses, in which only the priest communes, are not, as Luther taught, a superstition inspired by the devil; they are a true sacrifice pleasing to God; the people in them commune spiritually. The ancient use of not praying Mass in a vulgar language should be retained, in order to better symbolize the unity of faith, the unity of language and Worship (Session XXII).

 

7. Penance and Extreme Unction

Penance or Confession is one of the sacraments against which Luther invested most fiercely. It was therefore appropriate that the Council legislate with great precision in this particular so much sought by the wrath of the reformer. "At all times, says the Council, Penance has been necessary to attain the forgiveness of sins. Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament of penance when He said to His apostles: Receive the Holy Spirit, sins will be forgiven to those forgiven. .
However, it is not possible to arrive at the pardon of penance except by the painful works; That is why this sacrament is called laborious baptism. The form of the sacrament consists of the words of absolution; the acts of the sinner, contrition, confession, and satisfaction constitute as matter. The confession is of divine institution, for the priest, being then judge, cannot forgive sins without knowing them, to which the guilty must declare them. In confession all mortal sins should be accused, with their number, when possible, and with circumstances that change species.
The auricular and secret confession practiced in the Church is founded on the divine institution and is not a human invention. The Lateran Council determined only its annual obligation. The priest, in order to validate the acquittal, must have received from the bishop a judicial power. As for satisfaction, it is indispensable for forgiveness. The injustice done to God must be repaired; therefore the priest imposes a sacramental penance, to which works of penance must be added. Extreme Anointing was considered by the Fathers as the supplement of penance. The Council maintained against Protestantism the divine institution of this sacrament, promulgated by St. James, and whose results, for the spiritual and bodily relief of the sick, the apostle so clearly described. The faithful cannot, therefore, despise, without committing sin, such a valuable help "(Session XIV).

 

8. ORDER AND MARRIAGE

Luther and Calvin, above all, had rejected the Order as a sacrament; they regarded it as a rite instituting the ministers of the word and the sacraments; for Protestants there is no hierarchy; all Christians are likewise priests, and for the exercise of their functions it is sufficient to have the election of the magistrate and the good pleasure of the people. Bishops are not superior to simple priests. Against all these denials the council raised its voice and reestablished the truth always in force in the Church. "The sacrifice and the priest are so closely linked that one could not exist without the other. For our Lord, who established the sacrifice of the Mass, founded the Catholic priesthood in the same way; he made it a true sacrament to which the future priest goes. coming by the orders, which are seven in number: the inferiors of ostiary, reader, exorcist, acolyte, and the larger orders: subdiaconate, diaconate, and presbyterate, which have been found since the early days of the Church. "
Against Luther's denials and his aversion to the Pope, the council affirmed the existence of a hierarchy consisting of bishops, priests and inferior ministers; the superiority of the bishops over the priests their exclusive power to administer confirmation and order without the intervention of the people. The Pope's primacy had been solemnly proclaimed at the Council of Florence; It was a definite fact that did not require further examination. (session XXIII). As for marriage, Luther had reduced it to a mere civil commitment; he had not trembled before polygamy and divorce, even scandalizing his own disciples. The council re-established the truth, in these terms: "The perpetuity and indissolubility of marriage, he says, are revealed to us from the origin of mankind. Our Lord remembered his primitive unity and indissolubility, not allowing man to separate what God united, and made him a sacrament, enriching him with his grace. " Then the Council published the anathemas condemning polygamy and divorce; avenged voluntary celibacy and virginity; retained for the Catholic Church the right to point out impediments, and to know the marriage causes and to judge them. (session XXIV).

 

9. PURGATORY AND INDULGENCES

We are well known for Luther's attacks on indulgences, purgatory, and the usefulness of prayer for the dead. The Council should confirm the Catholic doctrine and clarify the points fought. That's what was made with care. "The Church, instructed by the Holy Spirit, prays the Council, has always taught, according to the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Holy Fathers, that there is a purgatory, and souls detained there may receive relief from the suffrages of the faithful, and especially by the Sacrifice of the Altar. ”The Council urges the bishops to watch over the teaching of this doctrine, and to make before the faithful the pious prayers for the dead, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the alms, and more holy works. (Session XXV). , the Council taught and foreshadowed “that the use of indulgences, which are of great benefit to the Christian people, and approved by the authority of the holy councils, should be preserved.” It struck with anathema all those who say they are useless, or deny the Church the power to bestow them (Ibid.)

 

10. THE CULT OF THE SAINTS

The reformers, like the ancient iconoclasts, had fought and rejected the invocation of the saints, the worship in honor of the Mother of God, the veneration of relics and images. The Council countered wicked blasphemies and reestablished the truth and practices of Church tradition. "The saints, who reign with Jesus Christ, present their prayers to God to God. It is good and profitable to invoke them humbly; and it is ungodly to accuse such a reasonable worship of idolatry, which is established in the traditional ways, which does not harm in any way. the relic of the saints, the faithful owe them respect and veneration, because they are remnants of the bodies that were the living members of the Holy Spirit, and will someday rise to everlasting life. Moreover, it is necessary to have and keep, especially in the churches, images of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mother of God and the other saints, and to give them the honor and veneration due to them; not because we believe in them to be divinity, or a virtue worthy of our worship, or because we should ask them for thanks, or put our trust in them, as did the heathen, whose hope was in idols, but because the honor was bestowed upon them, refers to the prototypes they represent, as defined by the councils, and particularly by the second council of Nicaea, against the iconoclasts, (session XXV).

 

11. Disciplinary Decrees

The Council pursued, clearly and precisely, Luther's various heresies, asserting against her the blow and death. Hesitant Catholics and sincere Protestants, deceived for a moment by the appearances of error, might as well feel the accumulated heresies, errors, and destructions since the first attempt at rebellion. No new statement came from the conclave, but the teaching always accepted in Catholicism was repeated and popularized. True doctrine, as a result of the clash with heresies, became more firm; the expressions became more popular, and the unswerving faith of the Catholic Church shone most brightly in the darkness of Protestantism. While Luther had thickened the darkness, while his disciples continued to sow doubt and shambles, the Catholic Church rose beautiful and radiant, sowing waves of light into the world and souls, through the clarity and firmness of its immortal doctrine. , which has never changed and will not change, because it is the expression of the divine word. However, the work of reform undertaken by the Council did not stop there. Alongside the luminous exposition of the doctrine, he engaged in the discipline of the Church, laying down wise and timely laws. Without summarizing its guidelines, it is sufficient to remember to deal especially with clerical discipline and customs, election of parish priests, appointment and choice of bishops, provisions on simony, plurality of benefits and their heredity. Provincial synods come into force again; Episcopal visits begin again; the religious orders of men and women have to return to the strict observance of their rules regarding closure, the choice of superiors, the dispensations, the perfection of their state, and so on. For the sanctification of the Catholic people, all abuses are pointed to by the conclave, putting a brake on the lust, greed and vices of princes and subjects. Three admirable and effective steps have been taken for the general direction of the :religion: the foundation of clergy training seminars; the establishment of the Index for the examination and condemnation of bad books; and the writing of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, model of our current catechisms; Finally, the revision and unification of the Roman liturgy: Missal and Breviary, to be adopted throughout the Church.

 

12. CONCLUSION

This is how God knows how to take good from evil. He allowed Luther, in a fury that made the work of hell evident, to strike against all the dogmas and practices of the Catholic Church, so that, as if for a moment muffled under the waves of dust raised in the world by indifference, by relaxation from the mores, through self-indulgence and disunity, appeared more beautiful and shining, dominating the human passions. The fact from experience is that the religion of Jesus Christ progresses more in persecution, struggle, slander, and even in bloody martyrdom than in the peace and material progress of peoples. The passions do not sleep, as the devil does not rest; therefore, when the Christian wants to cross his arms to rest, he soon becomes a loser. It seems that the 16th century Church was asleep ... and to awaken it, the Most High did not prevent Luther's action, although He could not allow it to be the defeated Church.
Luther passed through the world like a meteor of fire, shooting down, destroying everything ... and, in the midst of this iconoclastic fury, death stabbed him into the depths of a grave, dishonored by his life and his death. At the same time God lit a powerful beacon to light the world; it was the Council of Trent, and under its irradiation a legion of saints emerged to regenerate souls and bring them back to the one flock of the Good Shepherd, Peter, of Jesus Christ, as we shall see in detail after examining the lives of the saints of this age. time. Luther's claim degenerated into deformity, for it disunited and implanted in souls the doubt of where the atheism that is now overflowing with our age should be born. But the eternal Church of Christ also rose to effect counter-reformation, restoring truth and dictating new laws for the true direction of the world.

 

CHAPTER XIII

THE SAINTS AND HOLINESS

There is in the Catholic Church a phenomenon that is neither studied nor penetrated enough, and which is, however, the great, irrefutable and palpable proof of its DIVINITY: THE SAINTS. Exclusively Catholicism, among all religious groups, has SANTOS. Who is a saint? He is a person who, in his lifetime, has heroically practiced all the virtues, and after death manifests this heroicity, working miracles for his brothers on earth. Demonstrating their ignorance, Protestants accuse the Catholic Church of MAKING saints. The Church does not make saints; declares only that such a man, working miracles, proves to be holy; and after examining and verifying such miraculous and extraordinary facts, she CANONIZES the saint by inscribing him in the canon or list of his victorious heroes. Only God can do miracles and communicate this power to his friends. When a man performs miracles he attests to be a friend of God; and God, by giving such power to a man, approves of his doctrine and life, so that the miracle comes from divinity and makes the one who performs it credible. There is not one Protestantism, not even Luther, its founder, who has performed miracles. The Catholic Church, by contrast, tells the thousands of their saints. It is irrefutable and visible proof of his divine character. Nobody gives what they don't have. If the Catholic Church produces saints, it is because it has holiness with it, it is because it is holy. If Protestantism has not produced a single saint from Luther to this day, it is because it has no holiness. HOLINESS and DIVINITY are two confusing terms. The Divine is manifested by the miracle and proved by holiness. The Council of Trent was the promulgation of the holiness of the Church, against the relentless war of infamy, accusations brought by the "reformer." We will now see how this holiness, such a divine spark, was penetrating and illuminating the world. This fact constitutes one of the most shining pages of the invincible institution of Christ. It is this fact that we will investigate in this chapter. 1. The Popes The first irradiation of the sanctity of the Church is the papacy, which has been greatly fought and slandered by the enemies of the Church. Luther knew too much, and consequently accumulated against the Holy See and its occupants, the Roman Pontiffs, all the thunder and lightning of their anger and falsehoods. What is certain is that at the time of the reformation there was an admirable succession of illustrious popes and saints. Leo X, of the illustrious family of the Medici, lover of peace and science, soon after Protestantism appeared, discovered its poison and wickedness and threw the first anathemas against its maker. Hadrian VI (1522-1523), pious and active at the same time, devoted himself body and soul to the extinction of the new heresy, the defeat of the Turks, and the reform of abuses that had pervaded the Church. Clement VII sacrificed himself for Christendom of the new world. Paul III (1534-1549) In the midst of a thousand difficulties he had the honor of opening the Council of Trent. Julius III (1549-1555) zealously pursued the condemnation of heresy. Paul IV (1555-1559), elected at the age of eighty, showed untiring ardor and activity, covering all the needs of the Church. Pius IV (1559-1566) continued and ended the Council of Trent, approved his decrees, and courageously promoted his execution, powerfully assisted by his nephew St. Charles Borromeo, archbishop of Milan. St. Pius V (1566-1572) had it published the Catechism of the Council of Trent reformed the Missal and the Breviary; miraculously was informed by God about Lepanto's victory. Gregory XIII (1572-5385) reformed the Calendar and directed the destinies of the Church as a saint and a wise man. Sixto V (1585-1590) WAS A Pontiff admired for his science and holiness; ordered the revision of the holy books and approved the new edition of VULGATA. Clement VIII (1592-1605) ended the century, lending to the 1600s secular jubilee a glow denoting the Church's strength, resplendent in life and holiness. All these distinguished Pontiffs occupied Peter's chair at the time of the unfortunate Reformer. There could be no more effulgent succession and so it was so attacked.

 

2. RELIGIOUS ORDERS

While at the head of the Church's destiny divine Providence placed Pontiffs with high knowledge and profound virtue, it aroused within the immortal institution a true army of religious orders and congregations, designed to combat heretics, restoring the truth throughout the world, reforming the various categories of disenfranchised society. In order to restore to the clergy its primitive purity, the Church established several congregations of regular clergy whose particular purpose, for the sake of study and regularity, was to combat evil doctrines and instruct the people. Among these institutes stand out with particular brilliance: The Theatines, or clerics of St. Caetano, founded by St. Caetano de Thiene and Bishop Pedro Caraffa, in 1524, subject to the most extreme poverty. THE CAPUCHINHOS, REFORM OF THE FRANCISCANS, BY Meteus Bassi, in 1528, dedicated to the most exacting fulfillment of its rule. They took their name from the hood they wore; they have long beard and became independent in 1619. The BARNABITAS, founded in Milan, by Santo Antonio Zacarias. Their name came from the monastery of St. Barnabas, given to the first religious. Paul III titled them: clerics of St. Paul. The ORATORIANS, or Congregation of the Oratory. It was founded in Rome by S. Felipe Nery and confirmed in 1574. The OBLATOS, a congregation of secular clerics living in common, founded by St. Charles Borromeo in 1578. The MINOR REGULAR CLERGES, founded by St. Francis of Caracciolo and John Adorno, 1588. The Jesuits, a religious order specially sent by God to halt the march of Protestantism and repair the damage caused by the REFORM. Founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola, born in Spain in 1495. Paul III, in 1540, blessed oua approved the Constitutions of the COMPANY of JESUS, later solemnly recognized at the Council of Trent (Session XXV. E. 16). Its particular mission is to combat error through vast and profound scholarship. The work of youth instruction and education is one of its main purposes, with the spread of true faith in Catholic, Protestant and unfaithful countries. To this day the Society of Jesus has always been the most powerful and dedicated helper in the Catholic Church. These institutes are joined by other smaller congregations, no doubt, but equally benevolent. We will cite among others: THE CONGREGATION OF SOMASCA, established in 1528 by St. Jerome Emiliano, for the education of orphans. The URSULINAS, founded by Santa Ana de Brescia, in 2537, for the education of girls. The HOSPITAL BROTHERS, founded by St. John of God in 1549, with the aim of alleviating and healing the most terrible of human diseases: madness. THE MINISTERS OF THE NURSES, founded by S. Camilo de Lelis, in 1584, whose commitment is to stay at the head of the most disadvantaged, in times of misfortune and plague, sacrificing themselves to death. The Fathers of the Christian Doctrine, founded by the venerable Canon Caesar de Bus in 1592, dedicated to the religious instruction of the youth. This upsurge of religious institutes in the midst of Protestantism's struggles demonstrates the vigor of the Christian spirit and faith, revitalizing in the person of its members the task of destroying error and making the truth victorious in the cultured and obscure environment. 3. THE SAINTS OF THAT TIME The saints are the direct product of the holiness of the Church. Every age presents its saints, because, even in times of general decay, God wants to show that if humanity decays, it weakens, its Church always remains holy and sanctifying. Curious fact in history: MORE CHURCHES THE CHURCH, MORE NUMBER OF SAINTS BROTA OF ITS DIVINE BREAST. This is how we see an admirable legion of apostolic men and true heroes in the noisy days of the notorious Reformation, whose writers, along with our saints, were but trivial impostors in the service of Satan. Alongside St. Ignatius and others already mentioned, we see St. Francis Xavier, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Francis de Sales, St. Teresa, St. Francis of Borgia, Pope St. Pius V, St. Thomas of Vilanova, St. Pedro de Alcantara, St. Stanislaus Koska, St. Luis Gonzaga, St. John of the Cross, Bartholomew of the Martyrs, St. Belarmino, etc. St. Ignatius of Loyola, born in Biscay (Spain), in 1495, touched by grace, left the career of arms, consecrated himself to God by the vow of perpetual chastity, retired to the small city of Manresa and there gave himself to exercise of the most austere penance. It is there that he composed the admirable book of the Spiritual Exercises which, according to St. Francis de Sales, saved as many souls as it contains letters. As a pilgrim, he then went to the holy places, finishing his studies in Paris, where he converted St. Francis Xavier, and with four other companions began the Society of Jesus. St. Francis, born in the castle of Xavier in Navarre in 1506 and converted in Paris by St. Ignatius, was destined for the missions of the East Indies, preached the Gospel, established faith in 52 kingdoms and baptized with his own hands more than one. million one hundred thousand idolaters. After a life full of miracles, even multiple resurrections of the dead, he died in the midst of his missions and two centuries later his body was found in perfect condition. S. FRANCIS OF BORGIA came to light in the kingdom of Valencia (Spain) in 1510 from an illustrious family. Married and already holy in marriage, he left the world after his wife's death and entered the Society of Jesus, of which he was the third superior general. After relevant service to the Church and his Order, he died in Rome in the year 1572. St. Carlos BORROMEU was born in Lombardy in 1538. He has been a cardinal and archbishop of Milan since the age of 23. He was the nephew of Pope IV who commissioned him along with other distinguished priests and religious to compose the Catechism of the Council of Trent, later published by Pope Pius V. He was a true apostle and restorer of ecclesiastical discipline in Italy. He died in 1584, leaving works of high dogmatic and moral value. St. Pius V, Pope, was a Dominican religious. He devoted himself entirely to the service of the Church, developing in admirable zeal, revealing a steadfastness without hesitation against the Protestant sects. It was a model of mortification and heroic virtues. On the occasion of the invasion of the Muslims on the island of Cyprus, the Pope used his power to assemble a formidable army, sent by King John of Austria, handing him the banner and promising him the victory for the protection of the Blessed Virgin. which took place at the famous battle of LEPANTO, where 32,000 Turks died, 3,500 prisoners and 15,000 Christian slaves were released. The Pope died this same year. St. Thomas of Vilano was Augustinian. He was appointed bishop of Valencia. He shone for his virtues, his talents, and especially his charity for the poor. He died in 1555. St. Peter of Alcantara, Franciscan, was particularly admired for his extraordinary penances. He died in 1562. We have from him two valuable books: PEACE OF THE SOUL and MENTAL PRAYER. SANTO TANISLEU DE KOSTKA, son of a Polish senator. A Jesuit student, she was distinguished from an early age by Angelic purity and ardent devotion to the Blessed Mary. He died in 1568 at the age of 18. S. LUIS DE GONZAGA, from the family of the princes of Mantua; He entered the Society of Jesus, where he distinguished himself by the practice of all virtues, particularly by his angelic modesty and purity. He died in 1591 at the age of 23. The Venerable John D 'Avila was a mighty man in deed and word, a prodigy of penance, a universal genius, a glory of the priesthood. He left various treaties of piety and died in 1569. SANTA TERESA D'ÁVILA was a true prodigy of love. At the age of 21, he entered Carmel and lived in it for almost half a century. She reformed the Carmelites and, aided by St. John of the Cross, also reformed the Carmelites. The saint founded 30 reformed monasteries: 16 religious and 14 religious. He composed works of high spirituality. The people called her: Doctor of the Church. He died in 1581 in the convent of Ubédia. S. JOÃO DA CRUZ was the first flower of the reformed Carmel. A man of extraordinary penance was also a mystic of the crucified Jesus. We have from him works of high value of mysticism such as "The Rise of Carmel." He died in 1501. LUIS DE GRANADA, Dominican, at the same time illustrated his Order. He was a man of continual prayer, leaving us with many esteemed books of piety. The Venerable Bartholomew of the Martyrs, equally Dominican. He was archbishop of Braga and a light of the Council of Trent. He resigned from the archbishopric and died in his religious cell in 1590. S. FRANCIS DE SALES is like the golden key with which this gallery of saints, some contemporaries of Luther and others of a few years later, are enclosed. He was born in 1567 in the castle of Sales (Geneva). Ordained priest began his ministry in Chablais, where he converted 70,000 heretics. Elected coadjutor of the bishop of Geneva, he succeeded the deceased bishop, and for 20 years was a perfect model of all virtues, especially of meekness, of boundless kindness. He died in 1622, leaving us many incomparable spiritual works, which made him Doctor of the Church.

 

4. WISE OF THE TIME

There will never be enough emphasis given to a providential fact admirably demonstrating God's providence in the government of his Church: while hell asserts all the batteries of war to destroy the Church, God raises a plethora of extraordinary men, by virtue and knowledge, to fight error and defend the Church. It cannot be denied that Luther's blows were terrible. God let it do ... let the tree of the Church be pruned, let the heresy weed the garden of doctrines, to throw the rotten remains in the "yard" of Protestantism; On the other hand, however, he aroused skilled gardeners to replant this garden and rebuild the noisy spiritual buildings to the din of battle. Alongside the saints already mentioned, we find a legion of sages to carry out, on the scientific ground, the same action as the saints on the spiritual ground. In the first place, exegetes who have thoroughly studied and revised the Bible in their entirety make up polyglot editions and enrich the texts with enlightening notes or scholarly commentaries.
Among others are here Cardinal Ximemes, to whom we owe the Bible called the Alcala. VATABLIS, for long years Hebrew teacher at the College of France. CARDINAL BELARMIN, Jesuit, author of wise theological writings. There is also TYRIN, MENOCK, MALDONADO, ESTHIC, CORNELIUM, and HEAD, whose important scientific work would be enough to immortalize a century. Lutheran and fellow heresy, as well as the clear statement of the Catholic Church, at the Council of Trent led theologians to make more thorough and thorough studies, among which are wise treatises of the Jesuits LLESSIUM and MOLINA, about grace and the book of will and SUAREZ's even more illustrious works in which the doctrines of St. Augustine and St. Thomas are mitigated. The new demands of the Catholic controversy promoted patrological and historical research. From here came the precious works of MELCHIOR CANO, BELARMINO, PASSEVINO and BARONIO, published under the title "Ecclesiastical Annals" to counter the falsifications and lies of the censors of Magdeburg, the celebrated controversies of Cardel DU PERRON. Finally, we have excellent cultivators of hagiography or depiction of illustrious lives, such as ROSSVEIDE, IN HIS "Life of the Desert Fathers", who guided the immense work of the BOLANDISTS. The humanities were cultivated with no less care and insight under the protection of the Catholic Church. Galileo, at the end of the 16th century, freely taught in Pisa, Padua and Florence, the theory of the rotation of the earth. If some Roman theologians later condemned his astronomical system, it is because he wanted to intrude on theology by basing it on Holy Scripture. Under the aegis of the Popes, VESALO inaugurated the science of anatomy in Pavia. At the same time Calvin had burned alive MIGUEL SERVET, who had just discovered the pulmonary circulation. Protestants pursued TYCHO-BRAHE, coercing him to leave the Copernican system. Tubigese Protestant theologians condemned KEPLER for teaching the new laws of the planetary world; the Popes, by contrast, sought to lure him to the university of Bologna.

 

5. CONCLUSION

Such is the civilizing, scientific, and saving work of Catholicism in the hectic century of Luther and his early followers. In reading the history of reform, as outlined above, it seems to us that the Church has done nothing to oppose the nascent heresy, leaving the fiery Reformer full freedom to fight the Church and spread its errors. That is not true. The Church wanted to counteract the avalanche of falsehoods, but, as we have seen, the Pope has nowhere found complete safe support, as was necessary to prevent the progress of evil. But God never leaves His Church. He himself, after letting Luther perform the separation of the chaff of wheat, was in charge of combating evil, and did so without noise, without weapons, without apparent punishment, but with mercy and justice. For great ills, great medicine. The evil was extensive and profound in the time of the reformer; indifference was almost general; by the shock of the struggle the wicked fell and the good rose, guiding the saints that God raised everywhere. Once again the Church came out of the battle far more beautiful, glorious, and triumphant than before, and what it could not do in the atmosphere of general decay did so in the midst of the struggle: it sustained the fervor and generosity of Christian souls. A fervent Christian is preferable to a thousand lukewarm Christians; the Protestant storm shook the huge church tree; He dropped all rotten or decayed fruit to the ground and saved all that was good, noble, pure and idealistic: the number decreased, but the value increased.

 

CHAPTER XIV

LUTERO'S SUCCESSORS


We have already seen in detail Luther's reform and counter-reform of the Catholic Church. This gigantic simultaneous action could not be limited to the time; should influence in later centuries. As a distinguishing sign of this struggle, we can say that it is the fulfillment of the great prophecy uttered in the cradle of humanity: I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your posterity and her posterity. It shall tread on your head, and you shall betray its heels. Until Luther's time there had been heresies, no doubt but partial heresies, which were dissipating in the face of a closer study of the truth under discussion. The great heresy, the universal heresy, which seeks, always and in all, to say the contrary of the Church, is Protestantism. The two fields separated, well defined. On the one hand Satan with his adherents, in attitudes of protest; on the other hand the Blessed Virgin with the army of the elect. Luther's posterity went on and on; while the posterity of the Church of the Blessed Virgin likewise continues to crush the serpent's head, represented by the Protestants, steadfast in arming continuous assaults on the heels of Catholics. Undoubtedly, Luther's brutal, bloody religious struggle ended, but his hatred continues in the action of his posterity, unable to live without attacking the Catholic Church. Catholics, in turn, must respond to objections, ward off attacks and reestablish the misrepresented truth. The struggle goes on and on and on, until divine mercy opens our eyes to our dissenting brothers, making them understand their error and their heresy. In the present chapter we will follow for a moment the unfolding of Protestantism, the changes, its collapse into hundreds of different sects. It is not necessary to follow the origin of all sects, since only the main ones are an 888 (see NE in the paragraph above) not to mention the thousands of minor sects. Choose from the following 4, sample and model of the others, and analyze them more thoroughly. 1. The Baptists, founded in 1534 by Leyde. 2. The Presbyterians, born in 1555, by Knox. 3. The Quakers, founded in 1650, by Fox. 4. The Methodists, founded in 1738, by Wesley.

 

1. THE BAPTISTS

The 888 Baptist sect is perhaps the most pretentious, spiteful and fanatical. These sectarians do not want to be Luther's grandchildren, and in order to deny their origin a genealogy was made that would go back to St. John the Baptist. It is grotesque, but the absurd, in the language of reform, is called science and progress. With a seriousness that makes them laugh, these Protestants claim that the true Church founded by Jesus Christ was unfaithful to its mission, falsified the doctrine of its founder, thus becoming inept to lead souls to heaven; one part, however, became faithful, separated from the rest, and so went through the centuries until it came to us under the heading of "Baptists." But climbing the whole course of its history, we come to a very sad figure of polygamy named JOÃO DE LEYDE, a crazy, dawned with 17 women. This exalted man is the only true founder of this sect. St. John the Baptist figures in the Baptist creed, as Pilate does in ours; The name of the forerunner is for them a means of attributing themselves to a remote origin and of better hiding the clumsy and scandalous life of their genuine father. *** The principle of discord was the baptism of the children. Already at the beginning of the Reformation Luther condemned the so-called prophets of Zwickau, whose chief and founder was the famous TOMAS MUNZER, as we have seen, one of the participants in the Redneck revolt, imprisoned in the battle of Frakenhausen, and beheaded. The Münzer sectarians later made the city of MÜNSTER the center of their action, and were called ANABATISTS, one of whom named JOHN BOCKHOLD, later changed his name to JOHN DE LEYDE; this fanatic revolutionized the city in 1534 and, in front of a true army of explorers, expelled the bishop, - established the community of goods and polygamy, indulging in a thousand extravagances of pseudo ecstasies, prophecies and visions. *** In 1536 a Catholic parish priest of WITTMARSUM, MENON SIMÃO, seduced by the reformation, apostatized and embraced the ideas of John of Leyde. Menon wanted to soften the doctrine of the bloodthirsty Anabaptists a little; To distinguish his reform from his sects, he named him Baptists. MENON died poor, leaving in misery his unfortunate asias with 10 children. The Baptists thus came from John of Leyde and Menon, an apostate priest, of bad manners, who separated them from the Anabaptists. The doctrine of the Reformed Baptists breathed ruthless hatred of civil power. They baptized only adults, with complete immersion, and were attached to the Calvinistic theology of predestination, salvation, and sanctification of the Sabbath instead of Sunday. Joao Leyde, having come to dominate with his supporters the city of Münster, proclaimed himself ABSOLUTE KING OF SIAMAN, married 17 women, gave the example of the most heinous orgy and ordered to execute without judgment all those who opposed it. your will. The reaction does not make itself. Catholics, outraged at the monster, surrounded the city. This one was without food. Executioner Leyde had the corpses of the dead shredded and their meat distributed to feed the living. The siege of the city tightened more and more, and having taken the square, Joao de Leyde was pleaded with popular indignation. The Anabaptists, repelled everywhere for their crimes of violence and immorality, were spreading and weakening, giving rise to several new sects. In 1600 an Anabaptist founded in Holland the new sect of DIVERS (DOMPELAARS). They retained the same ideas about children's baptism and forced adults into a second baptism by immersion. From Holland the Anabaptist ideas passed to England, penetrated the Puritan sect, and formed a new branch: the Congregationalists. In this new sect, each group was to govern itself; only the elders had the right to teach and only the renamed could be admitted. Among these there was a new subdivision: some admitted baptism by INFUSION and others by IMMERSION; the first were called: the first GENERAL BAPTISTS; the seconds were ANABATISTS. In 1640, HENRY JESLEY, the Puritan pastor, sent a delegate to the Netherlands to receive the baptism from the divers, and then to implement the same practice in England, where they introduced the new BAPTIST sect, whose followers were the Puritans who rebelled against the actual determinations in religious matters. The sect became unimportant until 1688, when it began to expand in North America. Baptist pastors slavishly subjected themselves to the communities whose members considered themselves to be holy elect, yet indulged in all vices and filth because they did not accept the sixth commandment of the Decalogue. Today Baptists are classified as socialist and anarchist; the other sects do not recognize the freedom of free will; Baptists teach license, that is, the abuse of freedom. Where the goat goes with him goes the catinga, says the people. Baptists came to Brazil, founded schools, magazines, etc. that carry the same stamp of SOCIALISM (who knows?) but communism. Among the other sects are distinguished by their pride, their unbridled pretense, their hatred of the Catholic priests, by every means trying to lure the fallen and unworthy poor into their ranks who want to sell their cassock for a rib of Adam. It's the goat's catinga! ... They continue to be the descendants of an exalted madman and an apostate, sacrilegious priest. *** The new sect went the way of the others: time of enthusiasm, persecution of other sects, protection of Lord Oliver Cromwell, intestinal struggles in the sect, and divisions. In 1793, the First Division broke out, brought about by William Carey who, against Baptist ideas, had accepted a mission among the pagans. Other divisions took place because of baptism. Some rejected this sacrament altogether by calling themselves open churches; others were denying sacramental character as a simple biblical ceremony without the power to give the supernatural life. An English Puritan, Roger William, became a Baptist, came to America, where he founded a new sect called the BAPTIST OF THE SIX PRINCIPLES. In this short time there were the FREE BAPTISTS, THE REFORMED BAPTISTS, THE CAMBELIST BAPTISTS, THE CONGREGED BAPTISTS, THE SIXTH DAY BAPTISTS (ADVENTIST) BAPTISTS, THE CHURCHES BAPTISTS, OF GOD, CHRISTIAN BAPTISTS, etc., etc ..., FREE COMMUNITY BAPTIST, etc., etc. In July 1905 the BAPTIST WORLD UNION was founded to give a covenant resemblance, which is entirely impossible. , since there is no union in faith without even divinity. The individual interpretation of Holy Scripture does not allow agreement, not even on essential points of religion, for: QUOD CAPITA, TOT SENSUS, how many heads there are so many ideas. In Brazil the fundamental work that concentrates all Baptist activity is to slander the Catholic Church, ridicule the teaching of this Church, and seek to entice hesitant or cycled priests through lucrative jobs and sacrilegious marriages. They are sophists, sowing hatred in the hearts of the ignorant against a doctrine they themselves ignore and against an institution they are completely unaware of. It can be said to be the lowest, most fanatical, most hypocritical sect of all generated by the Lutheran reform. And what is its doctrinal characteristic? "It is the alleged freedom not to oblige supporters to accept a clear, precise symbol, and not to know in obligations imposed by faith." To be a Baptist it is enough to be rebaptized by a public bath in any stream, to hate the Catholic Church, the Blessed Mary and the Pope; With such religious baggage any fool or ignorant man suddenly becomes a fervent Baptist. Born in mud and mud, the Baptist sect exercises a mud apostolate. Hatred, slander, and the devilish endeavor to fall into their traps, poor and unhappy priests already unfaithful to virtue and character, and then to become unfaithful to God and truth, is the principle of action.

 

2. The Presbyterians

The founder of the Presbyterian and Puritan sect is JOHN KNOX, one of the most repellent figures of the Reformation. He was born in Scotland in 1515. He was ordained a priest and seemed to offer guarantees of perseverance, but a few years later he showed what he was: a slave to revolutionary vices and instincts. He soon adhered to Protestant ideas and, having been denounced to his bishop as a heretic, was questioned and rebuked to change his mind. Not wanting to subject himself and continuing the same life, he was condemned as a heretic and degraded of the priesthood. The first act, which made him known, was his complicity in the assassination of Cardinal Beaton, Archbishop of St. Andrew. He began to preach reform and at the same time became INFAME, for the misdeeds practiced with his mother of his asasia and with other women, resulting in great scandal among his own Hungen-rethes sectaries - Hist. Ec. TV p. 247). Forced to flee because of his infamy and violence, he took refuge in Geneva, alongside his friend Calvin; there he just learned to hate the Catholic Church and to practice all debauchery. And, 1555 returned to Scotland, continuing its preaching and invective against Catholicism. He claimed tolerance for himself, but did not exercise it for others, inflicting the most cruel punishments on those attending Mass. Their violence exasperated the crowd. This one wanted to arrest him. She was again declared a heretic and her effigy was burned in a public square in Edinburgh. He fled again to Geneva, staying with Calvin until 1559. He then returned to Scotland, led a crowd of fanatics, and on that occasion practiced a multitude of thefts, fires and murders, as well as the infamous crimes he was already covered in. . Indeed, at Knox's instigation, 78 people of the highest society, such as senators and bishops, were barbarously murdered after an amnesty. It stoked the revolt against the fervent Catholic Queen Maria Stuart, and begged the help of Queen Elizabeth to steady the triumph of Presbyterianism. He himself asked Cecil, ISABEL's minister, to “nip it in the bud,” that is, to have Maria Stuart murdered. And adding blasphemies to the other crimes he had committed, he asked God for wisdom for those whom he advised to assassinate his sovereign. Knox's death was what his life had been: a model of infamous hypocrisy. This persecutor and sacrilegious, accomplice of so many murders, desecrator of Churches, cause of the slaughter of the people, this man died uttering an infamous lie: “God knows, he says, I have never hated people, but their sins, and worked to forward them to Jesus Christ !. He should have put it together: "murdering them." Knox gave his adherents the name PURITANS which means: elect saints. Already at that time a Protestant writer: "such a title made even the hells of hell laugh." The Puritans separated from the Anglican Episcopal Church, rejecting the Episcopate, to become the "pure elect." From viper only viper comes out. From the vipers: Calvin and Knox came from the Puritan viper, a sect that intends to reduce the Church to its pure primitive state, calling itself "elect saints," though a source as filthy as the founder Knox came out.

 

3. The Methodists

Among the various Protestant sects the least dishonest of origin is Methodism; I say the origin, for since the time of its founder JOHN WESLEY, division and corruption have entered the sect and wrought havoc therein and still in the others. Justice be done to the founder, who cannot be denied good intentions, a ruled, honest life, free from scandals. Comparing John Wesley's life with that of his fellow reformers, he appears to us almost like a saint in the midst of a band of authentic bandits. The Methodist sect did not correspond to the disinterest and good intentions of its founder, and as its characteristic is its purely human origin, devoid of authority to direct souls and lead them to God. John Wesley was born in June 1703. He was the son of an Anglican pastor, a man of feelings, married to an equally distinguished and pious woman. He studied and received priestly ordination in the Anglican Church in 1728. The following year, assisted by his brother, Charles, and two friends: Morgan and Kirkman, he founded a club in Oxford to start a more religious life. . Members of such a club were dedicated to reading the Bible, visiting the poor and the sick, and educating prisoners. Due to the regularity of the members to their rules, the Oxford students called them “Methodists”, while the members called themselves a little pretentiously “club of saints”. Membership grew day by day. He tried to count men of real value for both life and knowledge. Until 1738 the club progressed, maintaining a sincere and active religious spirit, manifested by works of charity and dedication; since then, it decays. *** A German sect, “the hernhutters,” joined the club, bringing new ideas from an all sentimental religiosity: conviction to be in God's grace; conviction that, entering their souls, brought them a heavenly peace. It is soon understood that such a false doctrine has easily deceived dreamy souls, inclined to nevrose and unhealthy mysticism. Wesley thus abandoned inspired evangelical doctrine and accepted human ideas from a sect daughter of Lutheranism. He continued with his companions, preaching zealously and fearlessly in the Anglican churches until, in early 1739, the Anglican authority denied them access to their temples. The reformer continued his evangelization in the streets and public squares, and his ardent, fiery word achieved admirable but short-lived results. In 1740 the first split of the sect took place. The club broke away from the hernhutters from which it had received the fundamental principle of its inner life. The following year, a new division was operated by one of his most ardent companions, George Whitefield, who accepted the Calvinist doctrine of predestination, a doctrine that Wesley hated as blasphemous. It was the origin of the Methodist-Calvinist sect. Faced with the beginning of the breakdown of his work, Wesley envisioned a more rigid means of organization; divided the sect into societies; each society in classes; Each class contained only 12 people and one driver. Class Drivers were to report to Wesley each week. Each conductor had an assistant who was to confer weekly with everyone in his class, one by one, on the spiritual situation of their souls. Wesley later completed the new organization by establishing circuits, bringing together several societies in a circuit, chaired by a superintendent. The overseers were to meet every three months in a kind of council to resolve all difficulties without appeal and to answer all questions. In 1770, forty years after the birth of the sect, Methodism had 50 circuits, with 30,000 adherents. As it turns out, this man, who seemed sincere, felt the need for supreme, infallible authority; and, denying this prerogative to the Pope and the bishops' councils, he copied the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, attributing infallibility to a group of men, including himself the Pope. Thus we have Wesley in the office and in place of the Pope; overseers rather than cardinals; head of society rather than bishops; conductors instead of parish priests. The names were changed; the offices and the hierarchy stayed. Unfortunately, despite such good and logical organization, Wesley's sect lacked the supernatural side, the conviction of doctrine, and the assistance of divine grace. The Reformer felt the need for an infallible authority, but not accepting the authority established by Jesus Christ, was obliged to institute a purely human authority as impossible, for only God is unbelievable, and the one to whom he communicates this privilege, as he did. St. Peter. *** John Wesley was a simple Anglican priest, and as such could not pass the priesthood on to his preachers. He asked the Anglican bishops to give ordination to their companions; meeting opposition from the Anglicans, however, he himself ordained priests. It was a new cause of disagreement. His brother Carlos, the most devoted friend, separated from him, not admitting such ordination by a simple priest. This fact came to complete and emphasize the purely human origin of Methodism. The fundamental principle of their inner life is the sentimental subjectivism of the hernhutters; doctrinal, moral and ecclesiastical authority is the authority of CIRCUIT BOSSES; and the priestly power for the making of supper is Wesley's own authority as bishop. The founder of Methodism died in 1791. John Wesley cannot be denied much sincerity, goodwill, zeal and an honest life, exempt from these libertines that distinguish most reformers. Born in Anglicanism, he understood the errors of the sect and separated from it; He sought to reestablish the truth himself, instead of climbing to the cradle disowned by Anglicanism, which the Catholic Church would have shown him. It may have been ignorance in the matter of the exaggerated conviction of being in the truth, and of the Catholic Church, as the womb repeated so much, having departed from the doctrine of Jesus Christ. There are dark spots and plenty of questions in all this, of course, and despite his goodwill and zeal, it is hard for us to believe that Wesley did not suspect, at least in the midst of the ramblings of religious sects, that the truth, the only In fact, it was with the Pope of Rome and Catholicity. Be that as it may, it is true that among all the reformers Wesley is the least obnoxious and least extremist figure in history, despite numerous errors of arrogance and usurpations of power into which he fell until he thought himself a true Pope. Despite the regular life of its founder, Methodism has not escaped the rot that always attacks the separate sects of Rome. One writer of this era already said of Wesley's time: "Each Methodist represents or, to put it better, contains in himself a walking course, complete with immorality, like the Baptists." Here's what a jealous Wesley supporter wrote: “Like fire, says Flechter, immorality is making a terrible mess in our ranks. Among us there are those who speak of the divine Savior with an air of compassion; yet at the same time indulges in the most heinous crimes. QuaseIn almost all our churches, fraud, injustice, perjury, adultery, etc. walk with their heads held high and reign supreme. I see men claiming to be believers and at the same time indulging in the greatest filthiness of corrupted nature; I see pastors mourning the empire preserved by the law in their consciences: "Our depraved hearts, they say, suggest us to do something for our salvation." "Instead of reflecting and fighting addiction, on the contrary, the shepherds make it the tiniest apology from the top of their chair, and they propitiate the poison of immorality, drop by drop, in the hearts of the hearers." Dr. Halle, Methodist luminary, even argued that adultery, infanticide, etc. far from weakening grace, holiness increases before God. “If I committed more serious sins than Manasses, he says, I would still be a child of grace. Thou drenched thee in the mud of sin; you commit incest, adultery; you have your hands dyed innocent blood no matter, you are beautiful, my beloved, my faithful wife is immaculate. Adultery, incest and murder make me holier, more accepted in heaven ”(Flechter: Cheks to Antinam, Vol. S2, p. 200). Wesley also taught that justification is in faith and not in the practice of good works, so as to adopt the same basic principle of Lutheranism: It boldly sins and believes more firmly: - Pecca fortiteret crede fortius. Such a maxim is the most complete apology for the greatest crimes, such as murder, robbery, adultery, infanticide, incest, polygamy, in short of all the scandalous shamelessness of which the Protestants were propagators, as history shows. impartial. Already during the founder's life future causes of separation were shown: the discontent of preachers not elected as members of general conference; the lay party wishing to participate in the administration of the sect; the wounded pride of destitute preachers. In 1797 Preacher Kilham founded a new sect: NEW METHODIST UNION. In 1810 the sect was founded: "Primitive Methodist Union". In 1815 preacher Bryan began the Methodist sect of the BIBLICAL CHRISTIANS. The year 1815 saw the birth of the “Methodist WESLEYAN ORIGINARY” sect, formed by preaching Averil. The Year 1828 produced two new sects: the "Independent Wesleyan" and the "Protestant Wesleyan Methodist." Preacher Warren founded in 1829 another sect: the "Wesleyan Methodist Association." In 1857, 19,000 adherents separated from the sect at one time and formed together with the “Protestant Wesleyans! And the association born in 1829; “Free Churches United to Methodism”. At the same time another party left the mother to form the “Reformed Wesleyan Union”. *** The general conference fought to save the situation, and not to see the general stampede, in 1878 instituted another conference, called representative, with 480 members: 140 clerics and 240 lay people. Such a change of regime and authority more clearly stressed the human origin of the self and absence of the divine element. But not even that measure of general conference, directly accepting the lay element in church government, prevented the break-up of Methodism. Nowadays (1950) absolutely separate from each other, therefore not constituting a one Church, there is the CANADIAN, AUSTRALIAN, FRENCH, two in WEST AND SOUTH AFRICAN conference ... ... ... .. In North America, Thomas Coke, ordained by John Wesley, in turn ordained lay preacher Asbury. By their own authority, the two took the title of bishops and thus began the Episcopalian Methodist Church, the preponderant sect in America and the most aggressive. The Episcopalian Methodist Church, in turn, proved its weakness by dividing into independent sects. In the United States alone there are 16 Methodist churches from the Episcopalian sect: Methodist Protestant Church, Original Methodist Church, Methodist Congregationalist Church, Free Methodist Church, New Congregationalist Church, Independent Church, Seven Independent Black Sects (some in America, some in Africa) , etc. The Germans have in America: the Methodist church “of brothers united in Christ” and “of evangelical union” etc., etc. Magnificent response of Methodism to Jesus' prayer at the Last Supper: Ut unum sint sicut et tu, Pater et et unum sumus, unity of nature unity of ideas, unity of will, unity of operation! Since 1881 a general conference of all Methodist sects has been held every seven years to try to create an appearance of unity and a similarity of agreement in doctrine, which they have never succeeded. *** Farmer Jacob Albrecht not agreeing in the Episcopalian Methodist Church with the election of bishops for life, founded his Methodist sect in Pennsylvania, stipulating that bishops remain bishops for only four years. From Pennsylvania branched into Germany; the total of supporters never exceeded 500 thousand souls. John Wesley's original Methodism has the following main ideas: Holy Scripture is the only source of doctrine. About God and the Redemption through Jesus Christ accepts Catholic doctrine. Original sin is frankly explained in the Protestant sense. They deny the institution of the Papacy for Christ. From the sacraments are two: baptism and supper. But baptism is simply a sect of entrance into the sect and does not give rise to rebirth as God's adopted child. Justification is wrought by faith, and the Holy Spirit unquestionably manifests directly to the justified soul his acceptance as a child of God. In fellowship the well-disposed faithful spiritually receive the body and blood of Christ. Good works have no merit, but they are necessary for salvation. The doctrine of death, judgment, resurrection, hell, and heaven, agrees with Catholic doctrine.

 

4. QUAKERS OR TRAINERS

Like the Baptist sect, the Quaker also was born of the Anglican sect. The great hotbed of sects that have sprung up in recent centuries. The name of the sect "Quakers" - means "tremendous". It was given to the founder of the sect, the Englishman George Fox, by the judge of Nottingham in the year 1650, when, having to judge Fox accused of blasphemy, the latter questioned the judge, telling him that he was honoring God and trembling in his presence. . GEORGE FOX, born in Drayton (England) in the year 1624, belonged to the Anglican Church. As a boy, instead of playing with his comrades, he was often alone, reading and meditating on his Bible. One day Fox, then 19, was scandalized by the drunkenness of two Anglican shepherds: he retired to his home, spent most of the night in his room, unable to sleep, bowing down to the ground. to pray. In his weary imagination the melancholy young man heard a voice saying to him, "See how men allow themselves to be dragged about by vanity; move away from them and become strange to them." Fox abandoned everything: home, family, friends and work, traveled on foot from 1643 to 1547 from place to place, full of doubt, martyred by temptations of despair, vituperated and despised by the people. In that mood he judged in 1647 to hear a voice within him saying to him: “One can help you yet: Jesus Christ. Your name is written in the book of life. His conscience settled down and he strove to know Christ well. In this psychological state, which the melancholy chimeras and anthropophobia of so many years had put into the soul of George Fox, could no longer be by ecclesiastical teaching, university arguments or reading the Bible, that he would have the means of finding the truth. This was Fox's principle: "Man learned the truth only by divine voice, speaking in the human soul." *** Fox managed to win some people for his ideology and founded with them in 1649 his sect; called it the Friends Association. Without fear, they preached by attacking the vices of the world. Much had to suffer from the Anglican authorities; Little by little their numbers grew, and in 1654 60 tremendous missionaries roamed England. Like Fox, they denied the right to war and military service, teaching every fight to come from the evil passion of the heart; Many of his supporters entered military service - to sow the chief's ideas among the soldiers and end the army. Several Quakers, impelled by their imaginary spirit, performed acts that ended in scandal and dementia. Some have fasted to inanity, spending several days in deadly spasms; others in the church stripped themselves of their body garments, becoming naked to indicate their rebirth in the Holy Spirit; These, to imitate the prophets, were clothed with the skins of sheep and other animals. they preached in the streets against authority and insulted Anglican preachers in the churches, calling them animals, dogs, hypocrites, servants of antichrist, etc. Quaker Perrot dared to go to Rome to convert the Pope. Quaker Naylor was honored as the “most beautiful of the sons of men,” “the king of peace,” “the eternal king”; He entered Festively in Bristol while the women threw branches and dresses in the streets, singing, "Hosanna to him that cometh in the name of the Lord." *** Only in 1660 did more peaceful elements begin to dominate. Sect regulations were composed of religious meetings, marriage, caring for the poor, and so on. Only in matters of faith was nothing indicated as obligatory; each should experience the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Blatant contradiction: "To distrust the personal leading of the Holy Spirit in ecclesiastical and moral life and to abandon ourselves completely to the personal inspiration of the same Spirit in intellectual life." In the absolute absence of the philosophical principle: "ideas govern man." If the Holy Spirit truly inspires the ideas of faith to each individual, then these ideas should lead the person into the faith practiced, not the regulations and stipulations from without. In the year 1673 the splits began. Quaker Perrot split from Chief Fox and condemned the custom of kneeling and discovering the hunt during prayers. He demanded that his shoes be taken off and that his face be bowed to the earth; I did not want any obligation of any kind to be imposed; no one should do anything and should even stop attending religious gatherings without the impulse of the Holy Spirit. Quaker Mucklow forbade any authority or ministry in the sect he formed, for only the Holy Spirit should be the Shepherd, the Preacher, and the Elder. In this way, Fox's principles were applied to the letter. Story and Wilkinson did not reach this extreme, but formed groups with ideas contrary to Fox. The consolation of Fox, always persecuted and thrown several times in prison by the Anglicans, was William Penn, the most famous of the Quakers, founder of Fox in the US. United States, and Barclay, the cult theologian. He gave a body of ideas and explained them in his apology of the Quaker faith, a work that the same Fox, for lack of instruction and intellectual training could not do. Fox died in January 1691. After the death of the three chiefs: Fox with his energetic will (1691), Barclay with his science (1690) and Penn with his idealism (1718), the sect for his doctrine of absolute subjectivism. containing within itself from the beginning the germ of religious death has slowly but definitely declined. First, the foreign missions, founded by Fox, were ended. As early as 1720, applying the doctrine of the inner light, science and preparation for the preachers were despised, and uneducated people were allowed to preach; All inner care of souls has been imperceptibly abandoned, and all interest in ecclesiastical affairs has been lost on the Quaker people. The nascent deism, rejecting all revelation and accepting only a practical and natural religion, invaded the sect, despite the excommunication of Hannah Bernard who worked hard to bring the whole sect into deistic idealism. It was in 1822 that Quaker preacher Elias Hiscks caused the greatest breakup. He rejected all dogmas that related to the Christ. To him, and to the sect he formed, Jesus is only a sinful man like us, though he did not commit sin, and his death is worthless to us. Against Hicks and his people who did no more than walk the erroneous principle of the Quakers, uttered by the same founder of the sect, about the inner light, to arrive at the truth, absurd, unbiblical subjectivism, there was in 1837 a radical reaction, contrary to the Fox principle. They took "the name of evangelical friends." They placed the Gospel depending on the personal inner light. Manifest example of the origin and human spirit of the sects. Human ideas against human ideas; even the theological principles of the founders are lost and rejected, not only by the secondary sects that have separated from the mother sect, but also by the very group that says the founder's legitimate church. Thus Luther's early Protestantism, Calvinism, the Baptist sect, Quakers, and all. As the Quaker sect faded, it most zealously practiced works of outward charity and philanthropy. It was outer activity that replaced the absence of inner faith, to be the bond of union among the adherents of the sect. The number of quakers of the various sects is about 140,000. Quakers reject all sacraments. Baptism, of which Jesus speaks, is for him the interior conversion by divine light; Communion is but the participation of the soul in the spiritual body of Christ. They also despise any prescribed formula of prayer and worship; each one prays and praises God as and when divine inspiration suggests it. There are no official preachers; each man, woman or woman, wise or ignorant, has to preach and publicly pray in meetings, when and in the way that the inner light inspires. Barclay thus described a meeting of his sect in a room without ornaments, there are only benches, so that nothing outside can prevent religious sensations; there sit the friends of light in deep silence. It may happen that for an hour there will be no interruption of silence, apart from some groaning or sighing from one or more of the assistants, in which the Holy Spirit works, until at the end one of the faithful feels impelled to communicate their inner experiences preaching or praying. It also happens that the meeting is dispersed without anyone feeling compelled to speak. It often manifests the inner work in shaking solutions. "In living movements of the whole body, until the victory belongs to the light and comes out in luminous torrents and holy joy." So wrote Barclay. Quaker theologian. And one participant confessed to having seen many sleep in the meetings and others with a face that was undisguised boredom.

 

5. The Protestant Fragmentation

Let us limit ourselves to the more developed exposition of these 4 sects, because it is impossible to retrace the origin of each of the 888 different denominations that Protestantism presents us today. All of them were born of corruption, ignorance or madness. Wanting to go through them all would be the work of many volumes, not a popular book, which purports only to analyze the historical and moral origin of the sect in general. Such a tree, such a fruit, said the divine Master. The tree of Protestantism is revolt and debauchery; this tree can only produce fruits of revolt and debauchery. From such mire, as is the life of Luther and his first companions, can only come out and have only come out deadly, nauseating miasmas, which are the hundreds of sects, fighting each other, showing their purely human origin and What's worse, your birth from addiction. The fragmentation into hundreds of sects is the most palpable proof of the falsity of Protestantism. The truth is only one; mistakes abound, just as health is one, while there are hundreds of diseases. No sooner did Luther gather in Germany a henchman under his banner, and behold Zwingli in Switzerland raising another sect; At the same time Calvin in France was recruiting a new sect, the enemy of the true Church, and the enemy of its old Protestant brothers. England, in turn, has judged itself with rights of innovation. Henry VIII, hanging his wives in order to restart comedy, founded Anglicanism. Lutheranism, Zwinglianism, Calvinism and Anglicanism are four names, four parties and four factions, four diseases supported all upon the Bible, each claiming to possess the pure Gospel; They all have only one common trait: their hatred of the Catholic truth, the only truth or the only health. Thereafter, each century has seen dozens and even hundreds of new factions emerge, for medicine sees every year new diseases against single health. Any unbalanced, fanatical, or heretical head who feels brave enough to show off something new gathers supporters, builds a shed, and founds churches. In Germany a few years ago there were 37 Regional Churches, not to mention the FREE CHURCHES, which are hundreds. In England there were about 300 sects in 1900. In the city of London alone there are over 100. The United States beats the eccentricity record. Official reports indicate the amazing figure of 288 sects. Its fans change sects, as it changes stores: they look for the one where it is cheaper to sell. Almost no one thinks of a true church anymore ... no matter what the truth, it is about belonging to any sect, as any club is named or affiliated with any political party. Each sect is a kind of football club or touring club. Americans left the church title to adopt the name of evangelical denomination. Everything among them is evangelical: God, devil, Saint Michael, Satan, Caiaphas, Pilate, Judas, Barabbas, Holofernes, etc. Even the Tower of Babel ... everything is an evangelical title. It's a real circus clown. It is practically scandalous atheism. Of the 888 sects, which one is true? None. The true Church is the one for all these contradicted and opposed, the only one that does not change, that does not divide, that does not fragment: the CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC, ROMAN CHURCH. It is as if, reading a list of 888 diseases, someone asks; which one is health? None. Health is contested by these diseases, and everything that attacks is nothing but disease.

 

6. Sects ... Sects ... Sects ...

As a matter of curiosity, we cite at least a few names from the huge list of Protestant sects, officially recognized as such. Just quote a hundred, not to exhaust the reader's patience, leaving about 800 others. Who is able to go through such a list? Lutheranists; Calvinists; Zwinglianists; Anglicanists; Methodists; Anabaptists; Regular Baptists; Baptists of the 6 principles; 7th Day Baptists; Baptists of free communion; Adamites; Antinomists; Trinitarians; Antitrinitarians; Socinians; Latitudinarians; Gummers; Episcopalians; Presbyterians; Huguenots; Hussites; Quakers; Adventists; Unitary; Free Methodists; Primitive Methodists; Western Methodists; African Methodists, independent Methodists; Methodists of New Jerusalem; reformed Methodists; retired and old school Presbyterians; spiritualists; Biblical Christians; Wesleyans; nipples; pastured; Mormons; pentecostal, supralapsary; collegians; facients; lobsters; indifferent; multiplicants; beamantes; laboratory workers; Scaqueros; Sumpers; gloaners; Millennials; Wiferdenians; recionalists; generationalists; Zionists; adiophorists; enthusiasts; tires; intergerimists; evangelists; Luther-Calvinists; Baptists; menicerians; Puritans; Sabaritans; Armenian-Socians; colony-zeinglians; Ziandians; Lutero-Oziandians; Stanerians; anti-Presbyterians; Lutherzwinglians; syncretians; Synerginians; obquistianos; Pietietians; Bonaquerians; versecorians; cesederianos; Cameronian; Philistines; Mariscalians; hofinsianeses; needed; Edivarians; Piestians; villiefcedrians; Ambrosians; Moravians; monasterians; antimonienses; anomenes; Munsterians; clancularis; grubembarians; stables; bacularia; nudipedes; bloodthirsty; confessionals; Spotless (how happy !!!!!!); stark; taciturns; happy; demonic; whiners; free; spiritual; concubines; apostolic; potters; conformists; episcopalians; counter-assemblies; anticonvulsants; Adiophorists; brownists; friends; mystical, conscientious; reassembling; herrenhuteristas; crypto-calvinists; Minorists; socialists; puséistas etc., etc., etc ... So far 134. Who can count them all? Just this list! And still missing an 800 !!!

 

7. Eccentric Sects

There are sects of more than ridiculous eccentricity ... almost all of them are exquisite, but there are some that carry the palm and deserve particular mention. The Bible without authentic interpretation gives everything as exalted heads are capable of everything. Abraham, about to sacrifice his son Isaac, inspired to an Anabaptist the stupendous idea of ​​slaying his brother ... And yea .... The angel did not appear and there went the head of the bro! At Dower, a woman, by the same example as Abraham, beheaded her son (Cobeet, Letter XII). In New York, another woman crucified her mother after sacrificing a rooster and a calf. Imitators of the former patriarchs, Carlostadt, John of Leyde, Ochysius, and the Mormons preached and practiced the plurality of women and, in addition, the heroism of their mothers-in-law. Biblically speaking, that has its sights of reason: Listen to what Carlostadt wrote to Luther: “Since neither you nor I find any text against polygamy, let us be bigamous, tragic, and take wives as much as we can afford. Grow and multiply! Do you hear? Let me therefore fulfill the order of heaven. ”The patusco forgot that the New Law prescribes monogamy and advises virginity… But there is no worse blind than one who does not want to see. Let's pass them beyond ... it smells like bohemian cumulus. Protestant manna is meant to cry and to laugh. Then came the sects of weeping and rejoicing. The weeping ones are supported in Psalm 51 and 79 which says: “Day and night are tears my bread” and in 79: the bread of tears will sustain us! ... Who will give my eyes a source of tears? In obedience to these biblical texts, Weeping men do not eat without first sobbing, and watering the bread of abundant tears. Those who do not cry do not suckle divine favors in that sect, to which only the vain ladies belong today, when their husband refuses to cut their hair, sleeves and skirt. But all do not give to Weeps: there would be no onion coming! *** The BLOOMS always laugh in obedience to Psalm 31: “Rejoice in the Lord, and rejoice, righteous ones! ...” They are such a Protestant source of perpetual humorism ... at home as in the street, in temples as in the marketplace. , sniffle with hilarity or twist into loud laughs. *** Others read in the Gospel that the spirit blows wherever it wants. So they gather quietly in a house, read the Bible, and then all begin to tremble like green sticks, thinking they are filled with the Holy Spirit. Wanting to obey St. Paul's counsel: “Work out your salvation with trembling and love” (Tim 2:12), they find it great to tremble all day long, and even at night when they sleep. It is the sect of QUAKERS or TRAINERS. *** Fits cold countries, where we shiver from the cold ... and students the day before and on exam day. *** Others read in Psalm 22 these words: Your rod and your staff have comforted me. They are therefore looking for a mighty staff to be a consolation and a defense. They walk the streets, leaning on the humble staff that, on certain solemn occasions, becomes insolent boar .... on the quotas of others. It is the BACULARIAN sect, and there is another of equal rank, called the CACETES. From one and the other, deliver our backs, O Lord! Still others, leaning on Ecclesiastics: (3, 4): “If there is a time to mourn, so shall he leap,” they instituted the PULADERS sect. They spend the day turning and hopping. Great sect for carnival days ... but the old, rheumatic ones cannot belong to this church. On the contrary, the doctrine is great for the boys and the acrobats. *** Still others (why not?) - for manna and universal medicine - others find in St. Matthew (10:20): "It is not you that speak, but the Holy Spirit which is in you." Nice occasion to speak French, Greek, Hebrew, and even Chinese, even those who don't even know Portuguese ... *** Still others find in St. Matthew (10, 19): “At some point you will be inspired what shall you say… ”Then they gather in a tent, sing… and then, in sepulchral silence, they bow their foreheads to the ground, their backs being upright, and thus await the blessed hour when any URUBU come land on the ridge of the house ... Then there goes the clapper of the tongue, to counteract the lost time, they speak for the guts of Judas, going for sticks and stones, putting their feet in their hands and scissors in the reputation of others. *** Another brave biblist, to show their detachment from earthly things, adopted the verse of Hezekiah 7, 19: AURUM EORUM IN STERQUILINIUM ERIT - YOUR GOLD WILL BE IN THE DUMMY - AND THEY HAVE BEEN CALLED AS DUSTERS. What a beautiful find! And by their dissolute life they show that such dung suited them admirably. *** There did not stop the inventive spirit of Luther's earnest adherents. The Bible in many places speaks of concubines. Solomon's concubines, etc. (2 Kings 11: 3) Now all that is in the Bible, the Finns reasoned, is the word of God. God's word is holy; therefore the concubinage is holy; and here is the concubine sect solemnly entering the list of Protestant sects. Great for libertines and strangers of life! *** Luther, as he has said several times, was a friend of the devil, who appeared to him several times to congratulate him on the work of his reformations. Now, what the father loves, the children should not be despised and, relying valiantly on the text of St. John: “ONE OF YOU IS A DEMON” (St. John 6.71) they were simply called DEMONIA. Great sect for the demon possessed. *** Others looked in the life of the divine Master for a text to serve as an example. It is not lacking; What everyone does, however, is no new thing, and the eccentric wants news. They found in St. Matthew that Jesus, before the court of Caiphaz, was taciturn, NOTHING TO ANSWER (St. Matthew 16.63). They decided not to talk anymore; indeed, the proverb says that silence is golden and the word is only silver. It was the origin of the TACITURNO, authentic sect, in which everything must be said by signs, without articulating words. Good sect for the deaf and dumb. Do not think that the biblical fury stops in such a good way. To form 888 different sects with dissimilar names, one must explore every nook and cranny of the Bible. The ancient patriarchs did not know the shoes, but walked barefoot, bare feet. Why not imitate them? And behold, a fanatic made holiness consist in walking barefoot, founding the new sect of the NEDIPEDS. Others have thought that true Christians should live in the air and not on earth, for it is written in St. Paul: “WE WILL BE CLOSED IN THE CLOUDS ... IN THE AIR” (1 Thess. 4:16), Not wanting to wait for another life to come. fly, they want to fly right now. It is the pneumatic sect. *** Even the biblical Philistines had imitators; Wishing to show their warrior worth against the Jews, enemies of Christ, there were Protestants who called themselves Philistines. In Protestantism there is everything and everything. *** Let's end with the ADAMITES sect. It is known from Genesis that, prior to the prevarication, Adam and Eve did not abuse their dress, wearing a little less than certain modern fashions. Thus a cult was born in the Netherlands, whose members take off their clothes, responding to the prudent police of Amsterdam, that naked walking is eminently biblical use. Who knows if there are no amateurs in ADAMITA system out there in Brazil? Say, there, Protestant friends, in front of such antics arranged in the name of the Bible, one may ask: is this from God or from the devil? Is such a sect a religion? ... Is such a freak worthy of God and man? It is all farce.

 

8. CONCLUSION

Such is the origin of Protestantism and its sects. It's a mess! And do not say, as certain pastors do, ashamed of their decadence, that there is a fundamental unity among CREDES among various groups, their names being only denominational varieties of their history. Ignorant argument. Those who know the Protestant sects a little know that there is no connection between them or doctrinal agreement. Many are completely opposite to each other and profess radically diverse dogmas. Where will the protestant unit be? It does not exist, never existed, nor will exist, because it is essentially error, and it is multiple, as are multiple illnesses. “Unus Dominus, a fides, a baptismum: - One Lord, one faith, one baptism,” says St. Paul (Ephesians 4,5). This is what is fundamental. Protestantism is all divided: it rejected the one Lord, by an aggregate of sects founded by Luther, Calvin, Knox, etc. There are as many Lords as sects represent. They have rejected the ONLY FAITH, for among the thousands of sects there are not two who profess the same faith. They rejected the single baptism, for there are among them more than fifty different baptisms, and various sects even suppressed this sacrament. How can they be with the truth? Either St. Paul is mistaken, saying that UNITY IS THE DISTINCTIVE OF TRUE FAITH, or Protestant friends delude themselves into the mingling of their beliefs! The conclusion is therefore strict: where the UNITY is there is the truth. Such unity is not in Protestantism: this is therefore an erroneous sect. Unity exists in the Catholic Church; so that's where the truth lies ... the only truth. The Catholic Church throughout the world, and in every age, professes the same Lord, keeps the same faith, administers the same baptism: unity is the seal of truth. UNITY IS THE SEAL OF TRUTH “We must seek to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,” says St. Paul (Ephesians 4: 3). The innumerable Protestant sects retain no unity and no peace, for they continually seek to war the Catholic Church; they are therefore wrong. THE UNITY OF FAITH is the image of God's unity, and characteristic of God's children, says St. Paul (Ephesians 4: 1-14). Protestantism has no unity; He is therefore separated from God, while the Church preserves this divine character wholly and without restriction. The Roman Apostolic Catholic Church is therefore the ONLY TRUE CHURCH.

 

CHAPTER XV

PROTESTANISM


The study of the historical and moral origin of Protestantism could be completed. We have seen its sadly celebrated origin through immorality and hatred, we also know how Luther's revolt spread throughout the world, continuing its destructive work everywhere. This work should be completed by taking a penetrating and critical look at Luther's work, regarded as a religious sect. This view, embracing all causes and effects, men and doctrines, will make us understand that: THE DEVIL, LUTERO AND PROTESTANTISM are quite an inseparable trinity, constitutive of one work. The devil inspired Luther, and this one to Protestantism. Protestantism is linked to Luther and, through him, is linked to the devil. It is a demonic work, as the reader may see in the preceding pages. Consider for a moment this work as such, leaning on the Protestant authors themselves, unsuspecting of collusion with Catholics, to demean the sect which they themselves profess but are ashamed of.

 

1. JUDGED FOR YOURSELF

Just given the sign and example of Luther's revolt against the Church, behold, fifty envious colleagues of its results are thrown on the same path. It is not health that is contagious, it is disease, and above all the epidemic of revolt. These are the men, the most perverted among humans, - for rebellion always arises from the back, - here are the heads of debauchery, debauchery, and lies, proclaiming themselves to conceal their vices, the new apostles of a GOD. PEACE AND UNION. Instead of pacifying the people and setting the example of unity, they insult each other, insult themselves, threaten each other, and toast each other with evil words and the most infamous accusations. They call upon each other all the excommunication of the laws and all the vengeance of heaven. Luther's own disciples called him "new Pope, new Antichrist," and his father graciously repays them by claiming Zwingli as a false prophet, boatman, pig, heretic. And the latter answered him, "As surely as God is God, there is no doubt that Luther is the devil." Calvin says that Bucero, Luther's disciple, was delighted in the crooked and dark ways, and that Ossiandro was a man of licentious conversation and infamous morals. Melanchton accuses Carlostadt of being brutal and ignorant, more Jewish than Christian. Luther was right when he said of all his "friends: they are miserable, they do not understand each other, and God, for our teaching, lets them bite, tear themselves apart and devour one another." Once again, it is the teacher and his first disciples who must reform the abuses of the Catholic Church and bring into it the union, concord, peace, the true spirit of Christ. Oh Tell the truth, sincere Protestants: is this possible? May God use the mire to aphorise and purify the truth: May He want to root out abuse with rudeness, immorality, insult, and proud provocation? However, all that I have just said is historically proven. For greater certainty, I do not cite Catholic authors, but only Protestants. Where is the truth? It will be with the Pope who, calm and godly, stands on Peter's throne above the ripples, the passions, the interests, or with Luther, the embodiment of the lowest passions, the most ignoble filth, and the most shameful ambitions. uncertain, in the vague, it is impossible, We must choose! Or Peter or Luther ... or Jesus or Barabbas! This is enough to safely judge the value of all these pseudo reformers, with data provided by the heads of grei themselves. And yet these men, as we have just represented them, were at that time immensely successful ... What is the cause of this result? Let us answer a renowned Protestant historian, Mr. Monod (Revue Historique l. 49. 1892). “Reform, he says, was a destructive movement of positive Christianity and the principle of authority in matters of faith. It is just a series and a collection of religious forms of free thought. ” But as for the determining motives of the reform, Calvin himself writes: “Among a hundred evangelicals, one will only find one who has become evangelical for any reason other than being able to surrender more freely to all sorts of people. of voluptuousness and incontinence ”(Com. In II Ep. P. 63).
And Frederick the Great expresses this in his Memories of Brandenburg: “When the causes of the reform progress are reduced to simple principles, it will be seen that in Germany it was the WORK OF AMBITION AND INTEREST; in England, the WORK OF LOVE; and in France, the Work of the New ”. Speaking of England, says another Protestant historian: "To keep due respect for my country, I would like not to mention the useful motives that produced the REFORM: but everyone knows that the motive hurts the illegitimate passion of Henry VIII. Bolena. ”And it is always like this: The passage of a member of the Catholic Church to a sect is, more often than not, the path of vice or ignorance. On the contrary, that of a member of a sect for the Church is ALWAYS BY PATH OF STUDY AND VIRTUE Behold, dear Protestants, well proven by common sense and history, that Luther is not a REFORMER but a DEFORMER, a rebel.He is but a vulgar socialist or communist, giving his rebellion a cloak. Luther is an apostate friar, undermined by pride and debauchery. He opened the door of dissolution at a favorable time, when there were particular abuses, which served as a pretext. The apostate plucked whole nations from the bosom of the Catholic Church, to throw them into the skirmishes of discord, agitation, and despair ... but Peter's Church continued its triumphant march through the centuries, producing thousands upon thousands of thousands. SANTOS, while the DEFORMED church, did not even know how to produce a simple sister of charity. Remember this, the Protestant in good faith, and turn your eyes to the beacon of truth, built upon the foundation stone of Jesus Christ. And this stone never needed, nor will it ever need reformation, because it is divine. You are Petrus. You are Peter, or stone, and on this rock I will build my Church. Note well: MY and not Luther's.

 

2. THE SENTENCE OF DEATH

Protestantism was born CRACKED ... more than that: boxed like a coffin. At first glance it seems paradoxical such an assertion, but on reflection, it will soon be seen that it is strictly correct. Protestantism never had, nor can it have real life, for the very simple reason that it is a denial; and this is necessarily a lack, deprivation, absence of anything; and this cannot stand in itself; it only exists as an accident in another subsisting object. What, then, is a Protestant? He is a bad Christian, an apostate of truth, a renegade of faith followed by his parents, rebelling against the teaching and authority of the Church and universal tradition. The Protestant, at best, can be regarded as a bad Christian, as a Christian who denies the authority that forms the basis of Christianity. But Protestantism does not exist; yes, there is the Protestant, the individual only. There are no diseases, says science, there are only sick people, because being the disease the deprivation of health, it becomes the negation of an existing thing: and the NEGATION does not exist. Thus Protestantism, which is the deprivation of obedience to the authority of the Church, becomes a negation and this fact does not stand by itself; It can only exist in a Christian who is no longer good, as a sick person is no longer a healthy man. This vice of revolt was born in the person of Luther.
And it was transmitted by him to the century, as were the addictions of drinking, gambling, cocaine, etc. The bad Christians, blinded by ambition or licentiousness, to reassure the conscience, or rather, as Calvin said, TO BE ABLE TO DELIVER GREATER FREEDOM TO ALL LUCK OF VOLUPTOSITY AND INCONTINENCE (Com. In II Ep. P.63), against Christ and his Church the cry of revolt, of insubordination, constituting a sect of PROTESTANTS. Such a sect gathered around its standard all those who were eager to break free from the moralizing yoke of the law of Christ and the Church. But the revolt is a whirlwind that passes by itself can not exist, but rests on the unbridled passions of men. This is why I say that Protestantism was born MORTGED. He never formulated a religious creed. Protestants have never known exactly what they need to believe or reject. When one of the thousand sects says "I believe" - ​​another responds right away: deny. When it says, "It is wrong," it readily contests, "It is the truth." One can neither formulate belief nor protestant errors. It's worse than the Tower of Babel: it's an indecipherable BALBUDY. As a general rule one can say that the fundamental error is the negation of all authority, fixing the meaning of Holy Scripture, and the negation of all that tradition teaches. This theoretically. Virtually every Bible seller, yesterday baker, cobbler or bean and jerky dealer, wants to set out to explain the meaning of the Bible and replace tradition with his own ideas. They deny ... and affirm; reject authority, and become authorities. BABEL ... BABEL would say the German. The Bible is a true Tower of Babel. Under such conditions, how did Protestantism spread around the world, winning over supporters and followers? It should be noted well. It was not Protestantism that spread; it was vice, revolt, the squinting spirit of independence; and this revolt was labeled "Protestantism," as modern madness calls itself "spiritualism." The addiction was of all ages. He is the microbe, the parasite of fallen human nature ... but addiction is addiction; the term sounds bad to the ears. Come the REFORMERS or DEFORMERS, who stick to it a more attractive label. The revolt will be called PROTESTANTISM, the madness will be called SPIRITISM, the hatred of the Church will be called MASONRY, and barbarism will be called COMMUNISM. It is as for certain individuals, who confuse finesse with rudeness, kindness, and weakness, pity and beatice or folly, modesty and shyness; so for some people impudence is fashion, indecency is education and dating is hobby. Woe to the poor dictionary; but it is not his fault. It is vice that seeks to dress the dress of virtue or at least disguise its hideousness. Such is Protestantism. Well, addiction does not exist; what exists is the addicted man. Protestantism does not exist either; it is the revolting man that exists, and such a man was born shrouded, boxed in the dreary bier, about to be taken to the cemetery for burial. If it was not soon, it is because the addiction has taken deep root in the heart and soul, and these addictions have been feeding the Protestant hydra, which is finally in the throes of agony. Protestantism today is but a prolonged burial!

 

3. A DEAD STILL LIVE

In the preceding paragraphs I have thrown to Protestantism very serious accusations and very superimposing statements. We must prove them. We promote them and draw the conclusions from the premises, because I do not want the "friends" of the Bible to accuse me of slander. Protestantism is not a POSITIVE doctrine; It teaches nothing new on the bright side that the Catholic Church has no longer taught. It is a NEGATIVE doctrine, denying part of the truth and rejecting what does not agree with your passions and your whims. It is a parasite in the Church tree; It is a rodent insect of its fruits. A parasite does not live for itself, it sustains itself from the lives of others. The parasites of the human body live only as long as the blood circulates; the plant parasite only lives while the sap feeds them. Protestantism is the parasite of the Catholic Church; seek to feed on the blood of the faithful of the Church of Christ. Fortunately the gardener, who is the Pope, saw the parasite and plucked it from the tree, throwing it to the ground, where it now seeks to live from the dust that brings the wind and the humus thrown by the storms of human passions. It's an eternal dying ... it's a LIVE DEAD.
In order to live, Protestantism, from the cradle to the grave, where it is descending today, conscious of being a parasite, has grafted itself into the crowns of kings and princes to take their lives and existence. This is a historical fact. In Germany he identified with the empire. The German Kaiser was the Lutheran Pope. In England, from Henry VIII until today, the king of England is the Pope of the Anglicans. While these crowned heads let Protestantism suck their blood and protect it, the sect seems to still live; but as soon as they pick up the parasite, it will die, dry, pulverize, or turn into rot. At a time that was erected in Worms, Germany, in honor of Luther, read the following words, with which the same Protestants unintentionally condemned the work of their cormorant. “If it was God's work, it will remain”! “If it was a human work, it will perish”! What was left of Luther's work? Nothing, or rather the rubble. Protestantism no longer exists, Protestants say. The wise theologian, Dr. Krogh Tonning puts it this way: “There is a fact, whose evident reality can only escape obsessed spirits. This fact is that today the Protestant church is progressively and progressively heading towards its complete destruction. It is sufficient to study what is happening within this church to recognize the signature of time, in this sinister word without mistake; DETRUCTION ”And they are not isolated voices of pessimists who speak like this. A member of the German Reichstag, in one of the last religious debates, made the same sad confession: “The Lutheran Church in all of Germany could no longer be found, even if it was found in the middle of the day if the lantern was in hand. of Diogenes ”. Mr. Dammann, pastor of Essen, utters his anguished cry: "If this dissolving progress of beliefs continues, the very last hour of our church will soon sound." Dr. Lemme, the famed Protestant teacher, says: "Modern Protestantism, fundamentally destroying all dogmas, no longer has any trace of union with evangelical Christianity." In Germany, Switzerland, in all Protestant countries, writes Dr. Krogh Tonning, there is the sad word of Dr. Zahn: ALL DISSOLVES, THE HISTORICAL CHURCH OF REFORM IS NO MORE, LET'S RIGHT TO PAGANISM. Good thing it's not me who says it, it's the Protestant masters. Protestantism is a corpse, rotted by the very addiction that plucked it from the bosom of the Church. It is a corpse living in the person of those who carry it on its shoulders. As a sect, Protestantism is dead: it only lives as an addiction, by the spirit of revolt and hatred of the Catholic Church. Protestants themselves feel this so well that their preaching consists of attacking, slandering the Catholic Church and repeating old objections a thousand times pulverized. As for doctrinal exposition and the development of a practical moral lesson, they do not think so; they don't even get the idea. And if it comes to them, they do not know what to choose in the baldness of two contradictions. Clear proof that Protestantism is well dead; there is only NAME. And this label serves as a cover to cover ignorance and religious indifference, not to say what is applicable to certain individuals; your vices, your nasty interests or your pride. All these vices, too ugly to appear clean-faced, are dressed in the Protestant mask, which, while no more than the original, has at least one well-known presentation title. Poor Protestants ... such Protestantism is but a rotting corpse that you carry on your shoulders. It is you who live, you and your religious ignorance or indifference, which you seek to cover under the rags and wreckage of Protestantism. You are the children of Catholics, perhaps you were Catholics, so let yourself be deceived by any paid American preacher, or any demoralized in your own homeland, seeking fame and gold in distant lands. The love of novelty always wins some fan, and the DOLLAR does the rest, in the spirit of those who regard religion as a kind of political creed. Friend, carry the Protestant corpse there; Here in Brazil the sun is too bright to hide the Lutheran puppet.

 

4. SIMULATION OF RELIGION

I have already tasted a portion of my assertions; let's go to the rest. Please note that I never use evidence presented by Catholic authors. Such authors speak to us Catholics, not address Protestants; I quote, therefore, those who speak to Protestants: Protestant authorities and sages; wanted to quote PROTESTANT SAINTS, as the Romans quote Roman saints; Unfortunately, Protestantism, as Erasmus said, never even made an honest man and even healed a lame horse. His saints are Luther, Calvin & Co.; Luther's work was all of destruction, without building up anything. The vain simulacrum of religion which he established only served as a pretext for all human folly. "The customs I came to reform, he says, have become more corrupted. The world is getting worse day by day, and it gets meaner." "Men are now more avenged on revenge, more miserly, more lacking in mercy, less modest, and more incorrigible and bad than in papism ". Poor reformer! He was obliged to give the papacy this certificate, and to recognize that instead of reforming it deformed humanity. "Amazing thing," he writes, "how scandalous it is to see that after the reformation has entered, the world goes daily from bad to worse." Poor Luther, as he should not bite his lips! And he goes on: "The nobles and the rustics even say they don't need preaching and they don't pay a penny for all our sermons together ... They live as they believe: they are and become pigs and die like real pigs." most deplorable sore: “The shepherds, yes, the shepherds themselves who overflow the pulpit, are today the most shameful examples of wickedness and other vices. Hence his sermons have no more credit, no more authority than the tales recited by a histrion. And these srs. they dare to complain that they despise them and point them at them to ridicule them. For myself, I marvel at the patience of the people, and I don't know why the children and the people don't cover them with mud! ”And to say that these worthy shepherds who are worth a little less today than in the time of Calvin and Luther have the tuft to shout against the abuses of the Catholic clergy! MEDICE, CURE TEIPSUM (Doctor, heal yourself). It is good that such doctors heal themselves because they are mortally ill. This is what Protestantism was and the Protestant pastor in the fervor of reform ... Here are the models, the apostles of Protestantism. Conclusion: Protestantism, instead of ameliorating the situation, perverted men and sowed, with a full hand, and revolt and corruption. Since the founders of Protestantism themselves confess this, I can only prove that Luther's work still retains its name by pure habit, by virtue of routine; Protestantism has not existed for a long time. Let us look again for the evidence in the words of the reform leaders. Here is what one reads in the Memorial of the Calvinists of France, published in 1775: "We are now far removed from the path that our greatest opened in the early sixteenth century. Few disciples follow Calvin and Luther between us; our party, stung in a thousand different parties is not recognizable anywhere; our own children are our adversaries ... "; we don't know whose we are or under which flag we march. Today, indifferent, tomorrow Christians, we are sometimes by natural religion, sometimes by revelation ... our own ministers are shaken in their beliefs. "Such a confession, made by a group of Protestant summits, is quite significant. Here's what is more It is the Prussian jurisconsult, M. Schmaltz, that sums up all that we have just heard and said. "By force of reform and protest, he says, Protestantism has shrunk to a line of zeroes, BEFORE WHICH THERE ARE NO ALGARISM. "" I undertake, says another Protestant minister M. Harens, to write, on the nail of my thumb, all the doctrines unanimously admitted among us. "Such quotes could be multiplied to infinity, but it is enough to prove our point: Protestantism no longer exists, there is only one simulacrum of religion, a kind of cloak, under which shelter ignorance, indifference, atheism, and all vices. . Indeed What we have just seen are not assumptions or accusations made by Catholics, but complaints and confessions made by the high luminaries of Protestantism. Catholics certainly do not speak otherwise, nor can they speak differently, for the facts are public, universal, historical, so that any educated man knows them and confirms these claims. Here's what the Catholic writers say: "The Protestant church in Germany, says M. Rose, a lawyer at Cambridge University, is no more than the shadow of a name" "The chimeras and dreams that these daring renovators intended to pass for truth, says of Heronveller, they have been changed, interpreted, modified today to the taste of human passions and exist only as historical monuments. Protestant propagandists know the death of their sect very well, but richly paid to sell Bibles and collect signatures of adherents, seek to deceive the ignorant, the poor, the small, and even the unbalanced, so that they can convey to the center of the biblical propaganda the list of their achievements.I ask you, dear friends, that you do not let them deceive, repelling the Pharisees who offer you with haughtiness. the thirty moneys for Christ, that is, for your faith and your soul. ”

 

5. THE PROTESTING MIXORIA THE UNIT

It is the hallmark of true RELIGION, because truth is ONE, and religion being as it is, the relationship between God and the creature must necessarily be ONE, as the Church that religion represents must be ONE. "Unity, says St. Augustine, is the mark of all that is beautiful, great and divine." “We have been baptized, says St. Paul, to form one body and have one and the same spirit ... There must be no divisions in the body. There is only one LORD, one FAITH, one BAPTISM. There is but one God, the Father of all, who is above all ”(I Cor 12:13 - Ephesians 4: 3). The Church is Jesus Christ prolonged through the ages. Well, the Christ is always the same; it does not change, either in your PERSON or in your DOCTRINE. What reveals, at first glance, the divinity of the Catholic Church is its unity. Worldwide, in all countries, climates and peoples, Catholic teaching is uniform. OUR FATHER, which we recite in Brazil, is recited in Europe. The Creed, sung by Catholics in America, is sung in Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania. What the Catholic European believes and professes, the Indian, the Chinese, the African and the Mongol, Catholics, believe and profess, not unlike a comma. The Catholic Church is ONE, because it is the TRUTH. Protestantism, on the contrary, is divided into as many sects as adherents count ... And, without going into details, it can be said; each country has a particular Protestantism. Every Protestant State has its own sect. Every city, every street, every house ... has some specialty. There is no Protestantism, as a religion, there are only Protestants. And this endless division is clear and unmistakable proof of its human origin, its errors and its falsity. *** We should summarize a subject that would give write volumes. I ask any man of GOOD SENSE: is it possible for the truth to be divided into thousands of parts, so that one part contradicts the other, this one fights that one, and the first is the opposite of the second? Impossible: WHITE is white and cannot be BLACK at the same time. If in Brazil mathematicians taught that 2 and 2 make 5, in Europe 2 and 2 make 3, and in China that make 6, everyone would rightly shout that arithmetic is a slapstick, which is wrong, false, or rather that does not exist. Well, that's what Protestantism is doing; and this not only in three or four contradictions, but in thousands and thousands of inconsistencies. Each sect, each branch of Protestantism is at odds with the others. An English Protestant newspaper, more than 30 years ago, said: “One cannot enunciate, without blushing with shame, not even half of the sects that in England dispute the Episcopal Church for the rule of souls!” (Monthley Review ). Tell me, is it possible that TRUTH, one and indivisible, is so multiple, to the point that there are as many truths as there are heads? And notice that each of these sects claims to have the TRUTH, the ONLY truth ... the whole truth! Truly, either these people are impudently having fun with the truth, or they do not know it! The last opinion is most likely: you don't know it. It's a mess, a complete mess ... proof that Protestantism doesn't exist, but there are only Protestants ... No unity, no foundation. The Lutheran hydra has thousands of heads. All of these sects accept the Gospel with sufficient rule and yet formulate SYMBOLS and impose DOGMS. Daughters of the same father who have renounced, curse each other, chase each other, call each other heretics, close the gates of heaven to each other. If you ask them separately, you will actually find a Gospel, but not believers; a revelation, but never Christians. Lutherans curse the Anglicans; Calvinists excommunicate the Methodites; the whimpers sob in anger at the tremors; while they jump angrily at the jumpers, the Pentecostalists send the Presbyterians into the kingdom of the vultures; the Puritans threaten to swallow the Baptists alive or dead ... And all because of evangelical meekness and believing in Jesus. Such a thing is slapstick clowning, it's nothing serious.

 

6. The Protestant Moral

That I have said of the destruction that characterizes Protestantism necessarily leads me to speak of its morality (if there can be morality in a sect that is concerned only with denial and destruction). Dogma and morals, doctrine and life, principles and their application are inseparably united in practice. Protestantism shook, one might say more: it rejected the dogmatic part, the doctrine, the principles of the religion of Jesus Christ; It must necessarily reject the moral, the Christian life, the practice of virtue which has its basis, roots and rule. And indeed it is; It has been so since the time of the Protestant father, Luther, and his companions. I am almost afraid to accumulate new charges against the poor tower of Babel. It is best to look for Protestant authors for passages that prove to be eminently immoral, immoral Protestantism, a school of immorality. The charge is serious. Let's look at the evidence! *** Luther put as the beginning of his doctrine: FAITH ONLY, WITHOUT WORKS, JUSTIFIES MAN. Here is what Luther wrote to Melanchton: “Be a sinner and sin earnestly, but let your faith be greater than your sin... We need only know the Lamb of God who blots out the sins of the world; sin cannot destroy the kingdom of God in us, though we trespass and kill a thousand times a day. ”Do you want something clearer and more positive in Protestant teaching? If a man had the madness to preach such a doctrine in the street, the police would send the preacher, in two times, to chess, as it would exalt the stewardess murder and all the crimes. This, however, is what Luther had the audacity to teach, and present as the Rule of Life. That's why they call themselves, "BELIEVERS IN JESUS, THANK GOD!" So that's the law of Jesus, saying, Thou shalt not kill. You will not scandalize. Thou shalt not steal. Will you not covet the neighbor's wife ?! Who should we believe in: God or Luther? They are in sharp opposition. *** But let's continue: the reader will draw the conclusions. Let's look for other texts from the Protestant masters. Says Thomas Crisp, one of the Reformers' disciples: “The Lord has nothing to impute to an elect to heaven, even though he were plunged into the depths of wickedness, the excesses of debauchery and committed all the abominations that can be done!” This is the clear and crude commentary of the principle: “Faith alone is enough to save oneself, works are worthless” If Protestants do not walk down the street, revolver in hand and knife between their teeth to kill and steal the detested Romans, it is not for their father Luther's wicked counsels, but — fairness to them — it is because they are worth more than the religion they follow. They are honest perhaps, although they are Protestant, and not because they are Protestant. The conclusion is inescapable: Protestant is worth more than Protestantism - and I even say that a Protestant, however bad and wicked, cannot become worse than his religion. The proof is indicated above. To be a good Protestant, according to the law of reform, it is enough to have faith, and then (Luther says) it can prevaricate and kill a thousand times a day. Who will come to this? No Protestant at all. Just the devil. And do not say that the conclusion goes beyond the principles. Here are Luther's words: "Jesus Christ" says the apostate, (Leipzig edition. Tom. XIV no. 128) arranged and coordinated things in such a way that there is no sin other than unbelief. " “Faith,” he said on another occasion, “is such that where it is found, no sin can harm it” (Walch: Ausgabe XII 18-28). “THE TRUE HOLY,” he says, “SHOULD BE GOOD AND VALUABLE SINNERS.” They claim to be saints, not because they are without sin, or because they become saints by their works; on the contrary, they in themselves in all their works are but sinners and reprobates (Walch: Jena T. VI. 199 edition). Are you listening, Protestant friends? Barabbas is a Protestant saint: he just did a murder. Judas is still a Protestant saint: He only sold the Christ once. They deserve a statue alongside Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Henry VIII. I DO NOT ACCUSE PEOPLE - I ACCUSE PROTESTING LAW. Protestants are a thousand times better than the religious system that holds them ... but it is a pity that serious people, that Brazilians of blood and faith are blinded by the Protestant error, or the ignorance that led them to such consequences.

 

7. CONCLUSION

After the foregoing considerations it is time to ask ourselves; Can there be among the dissidents of our midst PROTESTANT ministers who are convinced of their good faith and sincere? I think not! There may be ignorant, indifferent; but protestants in good faith, it is impossible to have in Brazil. The question of the future life is of such importance that a man of common sense cannot be indifferent to his solution. Each must necessarily see and examine at least the reasons for their religion, the reasons for their credibility. It is certainly not given to everyone to look deeply into these motives, but everyone can subject them to the light of common sense; and this must exist in every man who is not mad. We all understand that God exists; that our soul exists equally; that God directs everything by his Providence; that there must therefore be relations between the Creator and the Creature; and that these relations, which constitute religion, must be dictated by God and fulfilled by men. For this, no study is required; These notions are the domain of natural law, of simple common sense. Each Protestant should, at the very least, see, inquire into the origin of the religion he received from his parents from which he apostatized, and note the reasons for the apostasy. He should know the founder of the alleged Reformation, inquire about his credentials and the results achieved... And who does this among the poor Protestants? hear the answer. If you think about it, you would understand that the only religion founded by God is the Catholic Church. Soon they would discover that the alleged reformation is a human work, dating only to the sixteenth century, and made by a man, historically recognized by PANDEGO, DEFAULT, and the enemy of truth. Such an individual is not only unable to reform religion, nor does he deserve the esteem and veneration that should reward a reformer. It deserves the compassion of all. Protestants feel so good that they never had the courage to even honor him. They don't even feel encouraged to pronounce your name. No, not poor Protestants, virtue cannot be born of vice; light cannot come from darkness, purity does not come out of debauchery, and dignity does not originate from revolt. Above the sad figure of Luther, the beautiful, radiant, sweet face of Peter's successor, the Pope, remains what he always has been, the image of unity, peace and virtue, directing through the vicissitudes of time the destinies of the Holy Church of Jesus Christ, as the visible Christ among men. In this Church - they know it very well because they were born Catholics - in this Church virtue and holiness continue to flourish. Each year hundreds of saints, heroic men, have been raised to the honors of the altars, who have succeeded in leading to the practice of virtue and self-denial. Let us cite only, among thousands of others, the worldly Holy Teresinha de Jesus, passing her heaven - as she foretold it - to do good on earth, through the thousands of graces and miracles that daily spread over humanity. And Protestantism, during its 400 years (in fact now, almost half a millennium) of existence, could not produce any scholarly soul, no charity sister, no chaste minister, no saint. It is complete sterility! Protestantism did not know how to produce a remarkable work of charity, not even a disinterested institution. Nothing! Nothing! It only knows how to destroy, slander, attack and hate ... And is that religion? Is it the religion of love, charity, forgiveness, mercy, progress? No; it's impossible! No man of common sense can say this; still less to uphold it and to defend it with sincerity. No, not once; There can be no sincere and bona fide Protestant in the midst of a Catholic nation. There may be ignorant fanatics, proud, pretentious, envious, petty, but convinced, never! Never, because conviction requires a foundation, and Protestantism does not have it. And assuming that it has a basis, this can only be revolt, vice, hatred, as manifested in the person of its founder Luther. And on such a foundation one cannot build virtue. This is all in the domain of simple common sense. Human intelligence, being man's leading compass, must be respected, and cannot be in contradiction with the Bible itself, because both, reason and inspired words, are the works of God. And God cannot be opposed to himself.

 

CHAPTER XVI

An Overview

The last chapter of this book should be a brief synthesis. But I leave it to the intelligent reader who can easily deduce from what he has seen, known and analyzed, through this study, the impartial conclusion in the light of the history we have set forth as absolute sincerity. Certainly everyone noticed that my main commitment was to retrace the HISTORICAL AND MORAL origins of Protestantism. To achieve this, I placed the head of the sect in his own environment and environment, 1483-1546; Luther is, above all, the fruit of his time, not only for his very summarized personal qualities, but also for the living and ardent incarnation of the vices then reigning. If he had appeared a century earlier, he would have been, like so many others, a vulgar and despicable heretic, descending to the grave, shrouded in his mistakes. If he were of our times, he would form alongside the revolutionaries and communists, like Cales and Lenin, etc. Let us consider Luther's case.

 

1 .. LARGE ... AND LARGE ...

Going through the history of the great men, we find two categories of remarkable figures: one, those that stand out for individual value, and the other, those who are proclaimed great by the concepts of the epic which they themselves embodied. In general, truly great men are opposed to the ideas of their day; they are even persecuted by their contemporaries for rising above the vulgarity and popular passions of time. They have moral greatness and thus seek to elevate ideas and people. But to rise, to rise, requires effort, fatigue, and struggle, things of which many are incapable; hence the opposition around them arises and the deaf envy that haunts them. It is enough to see the life of these extraordinary men who are the saints; Take, for example, the biography of St. Francis of Assisi, St. Francis Xavier, Sto. Ignatius, S. Domingos, S. Pedro Cláver, Sto. Cura d'Ars, St. Vincent de Paul, St. John Bosco, Fr. Eymard, Ven. Cottolengo, etc ... all of these were great for IDEAL, VIRTUE, COURAGE, ZEAL, PERSEVERANCE. As such, they were misunderstood by the mediocre, slandered by cowards, and repelled by the wicked. There are two magnitudes: one that rises, one that lowers: one that rises, one that descends; the first embodying good, the second representing evil. There is, therefore, a kind of person that the wicked deify, though they appear petty, miserable, full of lowliness. These too are great, but in the evil they embody, in the hatred, revolt, and wickedness they embody. In this last procession Locke, Clarke, Collins, Findel, great rationalists line up; Voltaire, Rousseau, Holback, Diderot, Alembert, Montesquieu, etc., declared enemies of the Church, hated and cynical. The wickedness of the eighteenth century praised them as the legitimate exponents of a decadent time without faith and without morals. They were great, yes, in all of them. If similar is the case with the so-called stalking VALENTS; they are only fearsome when they kill on the prowl and betrayal, but often tremble and flee at the sight of a close fight, where they must resist someone ahead; is that outside the dark environment are worth nothing, are fearful and cowardly.

 

2. LUTERO

So we saw that the Protestants' father was great for his lowliness, wickedness and revolt. All her intelligence she put her at the service of error; his willpower was dominated by evil; his pride consisted in beating himself against all orders; his moral was the practice of addictions that would be horrendous to mention. He embodied what was bad and pernicious in his day. And that went to the extreme. Among the Reformers there are others who, like Melanchton, overwhelmed Luther for his intellectual preparation and culture, but remained erased figures, precisely because they were calm, moderate prudent, and such qualities, even natural, did not accurately reproduce ambition and revolutionary spirit. which boiled in the core of faithless souls, before which Luther stands out. Great men are always EXTREMISTS on the right or left: the first are the great on good; the latter are the greatest of evil: the murderers and traitors. Between the two are the mediocre, which must be said to be too good to be evil and too bad to become good. Ingenieros typically described this double class. The good man fights evil by all means; the wicked do it for a refinement of evil, remain in the mud for the desire to defile the whole world and the Church itself; the mediocre gets into evil out of laziness and get out of it. The WICKED, great by evil, is a great heretic, great rebel, obsessed with hatred, corrupt, and corrupting. So great is his aversion to good that he intends to erect in law his example, his revolt, his heresy, his obsession, and his own corruption. Here is the portrait of Luther. Such was he: great, yes, but not evil. Of extreme and exalted temperament, Luther did not allow half-falls and half errors. Turning to error and evil, it would necessarily have to fall into great errors. Hence his legitimate creation - Protestantism, a radical denial of all Catholic truths, a sect that is not an isolated error but a set of falsehoods. Whatever the church says, Luther denied it. This is what Weiss says in his Reformer apology: "It was enough for a papist to say one thing for Luther to reject it." One man asked him one day, Was not St. Peter the chief of the apostles? - What! ... - It was the smallest among them. Is not the Pope the supreme authority of the Church? - None of this! It is below the bishops, below the devils, below the civil governments! What a fiery outburst, demonstrating your rampant pride. But it is just the beginning. Consider what he says of himself: “Whether Luther is a rascal or a saint, it is the least thing, for his doctrine is the doctrine of Christ in person! I am so sure that my teaching is from heaven, that he has triumphed against those who have greater power and cunning than all the popes, kings, and doctors combined. ” And the new rebel Pope goes on: “What we interpret is what the Holy Spirit understands; what others interpret, be they great figures, is derived from Satan ”(Paquier: Luther aux yeus du rationalisme, p. 50). Luther does not admit the infallibility of the Pope; wants it to exist only for him, "reformer"; It is the height of pride and folly. Luther calls himself the greatest, the most clairvoyant of all men ... and considers himself even superior to angels, as one might conclude from this other passage even more stupendous than the preceding one: “I do not want my doctrine judged even by angels. but rather I intend with her to judge all, even angels ”(Comment. Ad Gal. V. Ad. Wittemberg). And they think the poor obsessed with it? ... They are wrong; After nonsense comes madness, and Luther is insane. Listen to this little piece worthy of Satan himself: “Since the world exists, no one ever spoke and taught like me, Martin Luther!” “I don't care about biblical texts, my doctrine needs no argument: MAKE LAW MY WILL” , Dr. Martin, I want it to be so: I am wiser than the whole world! ”(Denifle: Luther et reads Lutheranisme) Here's what paroxysm vesania led poor Luther to! It is the height of pride, or is it a true devilish possession. It is quite the devil, Luther and Protestantism, intimately united in one burst of pride and revolt.

 

3. THE BIG MISTAKE

Protestants are so pleased by the reformer's lowliness, his devilish role, that none of his sects wants to have him as their father. They all look for another name and another doctrine, but they don't even talk about Luther. When they point out their father's wickedness in the faith, they immediately answer that they have nothing to do with Luther, but only with the Bible. It is a free statement. If for Protestants the Bible is the rule of faith, how does one explain that their Protestantism is radically opposed to the Catholic religion that also follows the Bible in its entirety? How can the same Bible inspire and be the source of two opposing doctrines? It's impossible. The truth is only one. Why are Protestants called Luther's disciples? Isn't it because they protest? Is not protest the essence of your sect? Now one can only protest against what already exists. The Catholic Church has existed since the coming of Jesus Christ, and follows the Bible so well that in its doctrine one cannot find the slightest point or comma that is in disagreement with it. Protestants protest against the Church, guardian of the whole Scripture, protest, therefore, against the Bible, are therefore unbiblical, enemies of the Bible. The difference in belief between Catholics and Protestants is this: the former accept the Bible fully and identify with it; the latter reject many parts and interpret it to their liking. And in this is the great believing mistake. The art of painting, music, poetry is one; But how come painters who only make scribbles, musicians who spoil our eardrums, and poets who make us yawn and sleep with their verses? Art is ONE, but its application is indefinite; all claim to be artists, although there is only one way to be. The Bible is ONE, but there are many ways of interpreting it, as I have shown above. Will everyone be allowed to understand it according to their personal preferences? This would be as absurd as every painter, musician or poet would claim to possess the art of painting, harmony and poetry. In fact, the Bible itself forbids such thinking. St. Peter warns us that in St. Paul's letters there are some things which are difficult to understand, that the wrongdoers and the uncertainties have committed (as also the other scriptures) to their own perdition. (2 Peter 3:16). And in the same Epistle St. Peter tells us that WE MUST BEFORE, BEFORE EVERYTHING, THAT NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, FOR PROPHECY NEVER WAS GIVEN BY THE WILL OF MEN ... BUT BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, THROUGH OF GOD'S HOLY MEN. (2 Peter 1:20, 21). Note that in these two quotations there are two great biblical truths, denied by Protestants.

1. The Bible is not always well intelligible; Needs explanation.

2. Such an explanation cannot come from particulars; it must emanate from a competent authority. And what would this competent authority be? Is it possible to discover it? ... Jesus Christ said we should listen to the Church: IF ANYONE DOES NOT HEAR THE CHURCH, HE CONSIDERS HIM AS A GENTIO AND A PUBLICAN. (Matthew 18, 17). Therefore, it is the Church that is entrusted by NM. Lord to interpret the words of the Bible and communicate to us their true meaning. And that this meaning should not come from this or that man, but indeed from the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ said to Peter, the first Head, or first Pope, of the Church; Peter, I prayed for you so that your faith will not fail. (Luke 22,32). And he spake unto the apostles, and only unto them, and to no one else: WHO LISTEN TO YOU, LISTEN TO ME. (Luke 10:16). This is what is clear; since private interpretation is forbidden, we must necessarily turn to the Head of the Church, Peter, who is infallible to know the truth; and he who does not is a genius, says the divine Master. This is the point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants: the first listen to Peter, as recommended by the Master; the latter interpret the Bible according to their own head as opposed to the prohibition of the chief apostle. Who is right? The one who follows the advice of the Bible or who contradicts it and does what it forbids? There's no doubt. The Catholic is right.

3. Individual Interpretation Individual interpretation is the extent of all sectarian deviations. It forms the basis of Protestantism; It is therefore a mistake formally condemned by the Bible. Lamenais, speaking of Gallicanism, said that it was reduced to “believing as little as possible without being a heretic, and obeying as little as possible without becoming rebellious.” Protestantism can be said to consist of “believing in what one wants, WHICH BELIEVES. ” One can therefore adopt his own CREDO, join the preferred sect, or form new ones, if it suits him, change his religious denomination, according to the circumstances, and all by virtue of free interpretation. Such vacillation is for them the simplest thing in the world. This is what an intelligent and sincere Protestant tells us, Professor Vinet: "The word of God in itself can have but one meaning, but it can have a thousand meanings in the mind of the reader." "There are those who seek not the whole truth in the Bible, but merely that which pleases and flatters." “Protestants see in the Bible what they want to see, so that practically everyone has his own Bible, he takes what he wants out of it, and with it holds the most unbiblical errors, to the point where the same banner is unfurled over opinions. the most contradictory and antagonistic. They only agree on one point: looking in the Bible, not for her ideas, but for confirmation of their ideas ”(L'Eglise et les confessions de foi, p.29). These words, spoken by a Protestant, arouse our admiration for the sincerity with which they are spoken, but they provoke our astonishment to see such a sincere man not abjure the error he fights. It is further proof that for one to be converted, the logic of a right spirit is not enough; This requires the divine grace that God gives to the humble who ask, and refuses the proud who rely solely on their intelligence. This explains the difficulty of converting to a Protestant: in his unreasonable pride he only believes in himself ... and God, who comes to the aid of the humble who distrusts himself, turns away from the presumed pride. It is the case here to apply the joking reply of a French bishop (Mgr. De Cheverus) to a Protestant minister who wanted to argue with him, saying to do all that is in the Bible and nothing more. "Very well, my friend," said the prelate with a smile, "Isn't it written that JUDAS DIED FUCKED?" "No doubt," answered the pastor in wonder. - It is not written yet, the bishop continued: Go and do the same - Vade, et tu fac similiter? (Luke 10:37). So, the bishop concluded, I marvel that you have not yet obeyed the Bible. The pastor deemed it prudent not to argue with a man of such spirit anymore.

4. Retribution of Luther Luther blasphemed, exalted himself, sent the whole "world into hell, and the Pope to the devil." They are their own terms; In the quiet and reflective hours, however, this poor fellow confessed his mistakes in the most cowardly way. Such an inquiry has its importance: it demonstrates that his work is the product of his temperament and his passion, the result of addiction, the result of a kind of blindness and the consequence of unbridled pride. Such a fact would suffice for a sincere Protestant to understand the falsehood of the sect founded by Luther. The fiery rebel intended to REFORM the Catholic Church. Whose mission came to you? God's? It can't be, because Luther attacks God. Jealous for the glory of God? Even less, for Luther treads this same glory, confessing repentance of the wrongdoing and ensuring that if he could start over, he would not do so again. Want more stressful proof by Luther produced against himself? Such confessions are numerous in the life of the founder of Protestantism. We have collected some among many that show us the madness, the passion of the sad DEFORMATOR. In one of those moments of lucidity he came to the point of exclaiming: "If God had not closed my eyes, and had foreseen these scandals, I would never have begun and taught the Gospel" (Walch. Ed. Vol. VI p. 920). He himself asserts that "the cities that welcomed him with open arms became like new" Sodomas and Gomorras, "and he was astonished that the gates of hell had not yet opened" to cast and rain devils. " In 1529 Luther proclaimed that moral and social conditions, after the advent of Protestantism, had become seven times worse than before under the Papacy. Listen to their words that explain why: "Because after we have learned the Gospel, we steal, lie, deceive, practice gluttony, intoxication, and all manner of addictions." “Now that a demon has been cast out, seven worse than the first have taken possession of us, as we can see them in the princes, lords, nobles, bourgeois and peasants. Thus they act, thus live without fear, with contempt for God and his threats ”(Erlangen ed. V 34, p. 441). This is another precious confession of the innovator, verifying the fruits of his reformation, and clearly showing that he does not believe in his own work, which considers only DEFORMATION. "Since the new Gospel was preached, he says, things have gotten worse and worse." And in the end, he is not afraid to say that "they have never been worse than now" (Ib. VII, p. 302). After such fact, indeed, certain and historical, after weighing the horrifying consequences of his Bolshevik doctrines, Luther exclaims: “And I have enmity and hatred for the whole world! I can't believe what I teach! Others, however, find me completely convinced. If I were younger, I wouldn't preach at all and look for another profession. ” Such confidences from the Protestant's father are interesting. He himself says that he has not been given any mission but attests to doing what he does only by profession, being repentant and clearly not believing what he teaches. However, let's take a good look at the defendant's confession. He goes on: “Ah! If I had anticipated that my company would take me so far, I would certainly have put a brake on my tongue. How many, I say with a sigh, have not seduced your doctrine! I am the cause of all current revolutions ... Such a thought does not leave me. Yes, I wish I had not started this business. The anguish I suffer is a hell to me, but since I have begun to strengthen and sustain it as a just thing ”(Obr. Luppl. Mainz 1827). It is impossible to clear and positive word! It melts and portrays all the work of the proud heresiarch. It is a sentence of condemnation and the retraction of his work. Nothing more explicit, more horrifying and more cynical at the same time. He recognizes the mistake, sees the damage done, deplores the ruins, over a living hell, but declares that, having started, he wants to hold the most heinous enterprise imaginable as just, and himself known as evil and perverse.
5. SIGNIFICANT FACTS Words thus positive and clear are confirmed as to the meaning by a historical fact narrated in the life of the reformer. “He was strolling one afternoon in his garden with Catarina de Bora, his mate. The stars shone with extraordinary splendor and the sky seemed to party. - See how this bright spot shines? Asked Catherine, pointing to the starry sky. Luther, looking up, exclaimed, "Oh!" Stunning lighting: but ... unfortunately, it's not for us! - It's because? Replied Catherine, were we perhaps disinherited from the kingdom of heaven? Luther sighed sadly. "Perhaps, he said, in punishment for abandoning our state..." Asked Catarina. "It's too late, the car is too jammed," Luther said, and changed his conversation. What a painful and clear confession! Yet another fact is told in the life of the poor reformer. One night he was sitting next to Catherine, warming his hands to the burning fire in the room. He looked taciturn, annoyed… Suddenly, taking her companion's arm, he slammed her hand into the flames. Catherine cried out ... "What do you have, woman," said Luther darkly and mockingly; what's up? We need to get used to the fire as it awaits us in the next world! These facts show the tormented conscience of the heresiarch's remorse, and common sense and truth briefly curb the appetites and passions. Let us finish these testimonies with one last, even more expressive than the preceding ones, for it is the cry of filial love that sometimes survives the ruins of all other affections. When the reformer was in the grip of his revolt, Melanchton's old mother, who had become Protestant on her son's advice, fell deathly ill. Evil made rapid progress and soon the old woman was on the brink of the grave. Melanchton, who loved her, spoke to her of God, and urged her to be reconciled to him. The old woman understood and, gathering the last strength, he said, "My son, be honest now that I am about to die; Tell me if it is better to die as a Protestant or a Catholic. The apostate did not hesitate. “My mother,” he said, bowing his head, I cannot deceive you at this moment; Protestantism is perhaps best for living in; but CATHOLICISM IS BETTER TO DIE IN IT. What do you want more, dear Protestants? Such a confession is or is not of value: We hear the voice of repentance, common sense, and fear. Here we cry out the filial love. Luther's disciple, who had deceived everyone, did not want to deceive his own mother ... not wishing to cast her into hell, advised her to die as a Catholic. The advice given at the time of death is sacred thing. Take it for yourselves and, as Saint Ambrose said to the emperor Theodosius, "after following David in his weaknesses, follow him in his repentance." After believing in Luther's folly, then listen to his advice on common sense and lucidity. Protestantism, allowing everything, may be more comfortable for life, but Catholicism is worth more to give us a good death, after guaranteeing us a good life, because only He has the promises of eternal salvation.
6. ANGLICAN'S JUDGMENT A high-profile Anglican Protestant, and today one of the sects of England, Pastor Edmonds, Rector of Whrittington writes the following, confronting Catholicism and Protestantism. It is a mild alarm, a cry out of the common sense of a soul that sees the truth, without perhaps moving to embrace it. He writes in his newspaper: “There is no lack of evidence to prove that the only Christian religion, capable of facing the future, with assured existence, is one that can rest on the testimony of the past, that is, on the testimony of the old religion. of historic christianity. And this belief is that of the Catholic religion. Protestantism is apparently decrepit. He met a fair number of noble adherents, impossible, but eternally to live a protest. Protestant religion is partial religion, favoring partiality. Only the Catholic religion, which is a total religion, that is, of the whole and not only of the part, fully meets the spiritual needs of men of all times and of all countries. What mankind wants is a supernatural and mystical religion, which comes from God Himself and offers a worship connected with His own heavenly worship. Free worship, with its modality, homeliness and autonomy, cannot satisfy and satisfy religious sentiment. One cannot dispense with ceremonies and rites. Religion that closes the door on the unseen world and does not recommend prayers for the dead, while entertaining soft communion with the dead, cannot be a safe backing for this poor humanity. The reader of these words of mine. Perhaps you will tell me: If this is the religion we need, we must submit to the Pope and convert to Catholicism. It is quite possible that this would be right in the right direction, although we could still discuss it. ” Every sincere Protestant, like the aforementioned pastor, clearly sees the stampede of his sect, the ridicule of the principles of his belief, the inanity of his spiritual life, and the futility of his efforts to combat the Catholic Church. however, it is difficult. Luther, under the inspiration of the devil, knew how to instill such hatred in the papacy. It has inspired so many prejudices against the Church that it is only by virtue of a miracle of divine mercy that it can emerge from the abyss of its errors and the maze of its doubts.

7. CONCLUSION It is pointless to prolong quotations and reasoning. The disgusting and depraved character of the life of the chief chief of Protestant sects is too visible to anyone. Everything about him reveals wickedness. After all the foregoing, let me ask every wise man who has read this work: CAN GOD MAKE VICE TO CORRECT ADDICTION? Can He Use a Perverse Man to Sanctify the Church? Everyone will respond without delay: It is impossible! God who is holiness must use instruments worthy of himself. This is the case of applying the allopathic axiom: CONTRARIA CONTRARIIS CURANTAUR. To cure a disease, the doctor applies a medicine opposite to it. God prescribes the same rational process. To cure debauchery, I prescribe purity; to repel the devil, send the prayer; To counteract spiritual anemia, he resorts to the Eucharistic Table. When spiritual evil weakens the church organism, it resorts to the appropriate remedy. As we have seen, Luther's time was one of extreme social and religious decay; a double cancer would roend, poisoning society and even the Church; it was revolt and debauchery. *** Jesus Christ had promised to always be with his Church, and assured that the gates of hell would not prevail against her! His word and assurance is formal: BEHOLD I AM WITH YOU EVERY DAY UNTIL THE CONSUMMATION OF THE CENTURIES. (Matt. 28-20). Being with his Church, and wanting to preserve it from the contagion of error, Jesus Christ must apply the proper and radical remedy to him; and what is this medicine? Obedience, by the subjection of the will; and the sanctity of life, by the purity of customs. If Luther had presented himself with these two badges, his life deserved to be studied in order to discover his vocation as reformer; But nothing is offered to remind us, at least from afar, of such virtues. It is the opposite that overflows with all your actions. It is a finished model of pride and debauchery. Therefore, it is not God's chosen man to reform the century! Luther is nothing more than the complete incarnation of the great vices of his time. It is not a reformer, but a deformer: it is not a healthy individual, but a sick person; He is not a man of virtue, but an addict, not a messenger of God, but a representative of Satan. *** The time in which Luther lived presents true reformers from whose forehead radiate virtue, ideal, and holiness. The saints are: Ignatius, Francis Xavier, Charles Borromeo, Thomas of Vilanova, John of Avila, Teresa of Jesus, John of the Cross, Francis of Borgia, Stanislaus Luiz Gonzaga, Francis of Sales, Joan of Chantal, etc. These men, whose heads are holed with holiness, would be able to reform the world, as they in fact mended much of what Luther had deformed. If God needed elements, to reform and purify His Church, He would turn to holy and wise men. These would not be lacking. It would be ridiculous if he had to resort to what humanity and the age had most miserable and unworthy to undertake such an important work. Luther was by no means chosen for God to reform the Church; on the contrary, he was an emissary of the devil, to lose souls and to sow discord and hatred in the world. Having come out of God, his "reformation" is nothing divine. Being commanded by the devil, his work bears the characteristics of evil and reveals the stigmata of hell. Here again is justified the title given to this book: "THE DEVIL, LUTERO AND PROTESTANTISM". The religious sect, founded by him, retains only one symbol of Christianity: the Bible and yet falsified. May the dear Protestants have the courage and sincerity to acknowledge the evil way in which they have gone and do not fear returning to the true Christ ... to the Jesus of their forefathers, by Luther torn from their hearts; It pleases God to throw them into the arms of this loving and merciful Christ whom the Catholic Church loves, serves and loves. There is no remedy but to return to the true Christ of the Gospel and depart from the false papal Christ, made by Luther. The true Christ is the Christ of the Catholic Church, the Corcovado Jesus, with open arms, who welcomes all. May your heart be wounded and eager to forgive, the refuge to which all who have gone astray from the teachings of their Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church must return.

***