In 1648, after an exceptionally traumatizing war, the Holy Roman
Empire was entirely within the parameters of north-central Europe.
None the less, within a few years after Lutheranism became established,
the Lutheran doctrine expanded slightly beyond the Holy Roman Empire, by
writ of law, and not by popular demand. So, the Protestant Movement
remained a northern one, expanding into Scandinavia and Iceland, and only doing so, at the sharpened tips of Lutheran swords.
Ironically enough, one of Protestantism's most successful players vehemently condemned in written text the doctrines of Luther and the Anabaptists whom even Luther condemned. That person was King Henry VIII of the very northern nation of England. And technically speaking, he was a schismatic and not a heretic. But, he was ruthlessly bloody, none the less.
In the case of Henry VIII, he successfully imposed
his will upon the higher-ups of England, and then he installed his new
religion in the remaining buildings and infrastructure of the old
religion. (Henry liquidated Catholic land.) He even used the bishops
of the old religion to proceed with his new religion. However, in order
for this to have worked so well, cowardice amongst the second and third
levels of power had to prevail. This happened in 1534, with the
Supremacy Act.
And of course, John Fisher was the only bishop
in England who didn't comply with Henry Tudor. The other ones
apparently didn't want to sacrifice the easy life appropriated by
Renaissance technology. John Fisher became a revered martyr. He wasn't
the only one. Margaret Clitherow, Edmund Campion, and Thomas More were
also martyred under the Tudor dynasty. Margaret was given a brutal
execution.
Yes, Henry can be regarded more as a brutal schismatic than a brutal heretic, at the start of his acquisition of Catholic Church infrastructure. A schismatic is one who keeps the doctrine, but denies the authority who upholds that doctrine. A heretic actually edits and redacts existing doctrine. He "picks and chooses" what he wants, and then tosses out the rest. It's called "Cafeteria Catholicism," as in choosing certain foods in the cafeteria line, while passing-up the rest.
Henry
simply declared himself the managing administrator of the Christian
Faith in England; not the author of a new doctrine. Luther, on the
other hand, redacted doctrine and even removed books from the Bible that
were officially declared the inspired Word of God throughout the
preceding 1,139 years. None the less, both Luther & Tudor caused
untold bloodshed. Both of those two movers & shakers of
Protestantism gained significant amounts of body weight in their latter
years, as well. Life was not burdensome for them.
Henry simply wanted a divorce that could not morally be given to him, by any pope who wanted to be free of the hypocrisy of betraying a mission that dated back to Peter, Paul, and a number of people who accepted death, in order to prolong that mission. So, Henry made himself the pope of England, by starting the Church of England with Roman Catholic church property. Many deaths of people faithful to the former religion transpired. And of course, there is a huge difference between the church IN England and the Church OF England.
 | |
| Bell Tower of London, where Thomas More & John Fisher were held, before their executions | . |
The start of Protestantism (as a politically-supported structure) was 1521. This was when the Elector of Saxony elected to give lodging and an academic dean post to the historical figure, Martin Luther of Eisleben. The protection and deanship was in Wittenberg, 53 miles away from Luther's copper-mining hometown.
Q: What is the first red flag, here? ANS: A layman is assigning a theology post to the person of his choice. Shouldn't a bishop, an abbot, a monsignor, or an ordained priest with university powers do the assigning? The answer is, yes. In as much, this was the first shot fired in the Protestant-Catholic Wars. Moreover, you insult an educated person's intelligence by calling it a "reformation." There was no reformation there. There was merely the theft of Catholic Church property and the theft of Catholic administrators' rights. Period.
Martin Luther was the original Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde
Now, concerning Luther contradicting himself, propagandists of today let it be known the he wrote, Admonition to Peace Concerning the Twelve Articles of the Peasants. Well, Luther also wrote, Against the Murderous and Robbing Hordes of the Peasants. An
insanely high number of peasants died between 1524-1525. During such a
rebellion, written texts can be more incendiary than shiploads of
gunpowder. Plus, Luther was cited by witnesses as having an explosive
temper.
Now, Luther is introduced in modern texts as a monk
who nailed a page or two or three to a church door and then suffered
repression. Firstly, the hammer & nail story was as fictional as
the George Washington Cherry Tree Story. Secondly, he was an
Augustinian friar, and there happens to be a huge difference between a
friar and a monk. Friars have more access to the public mind and the
court of public opinion. Friars can be more influential, depending on
who operates the nearest printing presses.
The 95 Theses text was mailed to the bishop's administrators. If you nail something to a 16th Century church door, it will get torn down and tossed out by the maintenance crew, because such a thing was NOT an element of protocol. Only church bulletins were placed on church doors. Thus, a courier delivered 95 Theses.
Proof that the hammer and
nail tale was bull crap exists in the fact that TWO envelopes accompany
the 95 thesis statements. A cover letter is included also, meaning that
one envelope was for the 95 one-liners and one envelope was for the
cover letter to the bishop.
The lesson here is that you get exaggerated sensationalism in tales about Luther, followed by him being portrayed as the ultimate caring being. Yet, 100,000 peasants ever so coincidentally died after his condemnation of them was published. Entire nations were told that their official religion was now going to be this new one invented by Martin Luther. Yet, it was a religion that was never taken out for a test drive.
The con artistry of one person does NOT summarize the entire organization for all time.
Moreover, the Indulgence thing was a super exaggeration. Firstly, an indulgence is NOT the absolution from your sins. They are NOT permission slips that allow you to go out and sin. The only way to be free of your sins is by the absolution of any validly ordained priest. If no priest is available, then either [1] a perfect act of contrition or [2] a perfect act of love renders a human in the state of grace ... provided that the person would have willingly gone to confession, if a priest were available. There is also the matter of "baptism by blood," and "baptism of desire" (which see).
Now, an indulgence is the partial or
complete remission of the TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT due to sin, AFTER THE SIN
HAS BEEN FORGIVEN. An indulgence comes from "the merits of Christ,"
and an indulgence does NOT grant you absolution from your sins. They
are assigned by the presiding pope, by the Power of the Keys that Christ
gave to Peter individually. And the Power of the Papal Keys is 100%
Biblical, appearing in the New Testament. Peter being assigned the
first pope by Christ is equally Biblical. Only a liar denies something
so obviously stated in writing. (See: Enchiridion of Indulgences.)
Today, you can get an indulgence by doing the Stations of the Cross, even in silence. You can get an indulgence by reciting the Rosary with other people. You can even get an indulgence for reading the Bible. And of course, the Bible indulgence flies in the face of the Protestants who very falsely claim that Catholic never use the Bible.
None the less, pious acts would be assigned "the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin already forgiven." And of course, donating money to a charity is a pious act. However, today that type of pious act does not get any indulgence, due to early 16th Century fund-raising con artistry.
The anti-Catholic propagandist makes the indulgence thing sound link this reenactment: Wife: "Oh honey, I'm going down to the store. Can I get you anything?" Husband: "Can you pick me up a couple indulgences, dear? They're sitting next to the produce section." Wife: "Sure thing, babe."
. . . It doesn't work that way. The anti-Catholic propagandists
... liars that they are ... made it sound as if Catholics were buying
the permission to sin. Oh no. In 16th Century Europe, if you did the
wrong thing, you got punished. Catholics are also instructed to "avoid
the near occasion of sin," and NOT to go out and buy indulgences.
Therefore,
it is 100,000% BULL CRAP to claim that Catholics were buying indulgences, to get absolution from their sins ... or to get
permission to go out and commit any sin they wanted. The great irony
is that Luther said that it was okay to commit any sin you wanted and still get God's mercy. Ranters taught this (which see.)
Sinful people
wouldn't waste their money on buying permission to sin ... or buying
something as invisible as "absolution from sin." They didn't care
then. They don't care now. They instead spent their money on pleasure
and power. They spent their money on alcohol and women, as well as
business investments. And in the 16th Century, there was a new industry
starting-up which would result in the Calvinist Dutch being the very
rich investors of that trade. It was called the Slave Trade. Yes,
Dutch Protestants would become masters of that trade ... pun
sarcastically intended.
Once again, a true Catholic only sought "remission of the temporal punishment due to sins that have already been forgiven through the sacramental absolution of a priest." This meant that she/he still had to avoid sin and resist temptation. Luther was only looking for an excuse to push through his new doctrine. He used the indulgence thing as a diversionary tactic, evidenced by him changing the subject repeatedly, as soon as he got lodging from the Elector of Saxony. Luther was a very predictable GAS-LIGHTER, no different than the politicians of today.
Francis of Assisi was
the great saint ... as well as all the martyrs in Henry Tudor's England
... not Luther. Do not be deceived. Luther had it easy. Francis of
Assisi was the one who did his share of aesthetic works, including a 40
day fast. Saint Patrick did this, also.
So, another lesson
here is that even the indulgence thing was presented in a sophomorically
false light, as much as is the Catholics-don't-read-the-Bible thing.
(See: Council of Rome, 382 CE ... also the Council of Carthage ... and
even a number of Councils of Toledo.)
Luther's doctrine said to be was reminiscent of that of Jan Hus. There was a huge difference between the two. None the less, the Hussite religion was NOT a national religion anywhere, including in Bohemia. It still did not reach the popularity of a national religion. None the less, declaring a cult's religion a national religion was very unnatural. Yet, this happened with Luther's semi-neo-Hussite religion. War after war ensued after Luther's movement began moving through northern royal courts. That religion became Dictator's Choice ... like a coffee brand. It prevented freedom of thought. Luther was a CONTROL FREAK, trying to impose his new doctrine on everyone else.
Luther
also advocated the eviction of the Jews from all of Germany, during a
time before Germany was even called Germany. This is why he literally
became a Nazi German poster boy in 1933. Luther was used by the Nazis,
to prove to the German people that everything Hitler said about the Jews
was true --- that Martin Luther gave his endorsement of Hitler's answer
to the "Jewish Question."
***************************************************************************
To route to Part 4 of 7 parts: http://www.theheartofmary.com/2023/02/summit-of-truth4.html
***************************************************************************
