German Bishops Hail Arch-Heretic Luther as “Teacher of the Faith”

CP&S Comment: This may be an enlightening post for those who are unable to distinguish between rational criticism of a Pope’s human errors and omissions in his role as defender of the Deposit of Faith, and a treasonous attack on the person of the Pope, Christ’s appointed Vicar on Earth of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.


By David Martin on ‘A Catholic Life

The Catholic bishops of Germany are praising Martin Luther, calling him a “Gospel witness and teacher of the Faith” and lamenting that the Church hasn’t given him an “adequate hearing.”

In a report released August 9th by the German Bishops’ Conference, Bishop Gerhard Feige, chairman of the German Bishops’ Ecumenical Commission, says the “history of the Reformation has encountered a changeable reception in the Catholic Church, where its event and protagonists were long seen in a negative, derogatory light.” The report asserts that theological differences have been “re-evaluated,” and that “the Catholic Church may recognize today what was important in the Reformation.”

Are the German bishops daring to question the Church’s denunciation of Martin Luther? Are they accusing the Council of Trent of having been “derogatory” after it rightfully refuted Luther’s errors for the greater liberty of God’s people? If there is one person of history who could be called derogatory, it is Martin Luther. Consider his own words about the Catholic Church:

“We too were formerly stuck in the behind of this hellish whore, the new church of the pope… so that we regret having spent so much time and energy in that vile h***. But God be praised and thanked that he rescued us from the scarlet whore.” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 41, p. 206)

Again Luther says: “I can with good conscience consider the pope a fart-ass and an enemy of God. He cannot consider me an ass, for he knows that I am more learned in the Scriptures than he and all his asses are.” (p. 344) “The papal ass wants to be lord of the church, although he is not a Christian, believes nothing, and can no longer do anything but fart like an ass.” (p. 358)

We seem to forget that Luther was a raving heretic who was driven by the devil to tear the Faith asunder in Europe. His definition of “repentance” was to reject Catholicism, evidenced by his hateful words against the Mass: “It is indeed upon the Mass as on a rock that the whole papal system is built, with its monasteries, its bishoprics, its collegiate churches, its altars, its ministries, its doctrine, i.e., with all its guts. All these cannot fail to crumble once their sacrilegious and abominable Mass falls.” (Martin Luther, Against Henry, King of England, 1522, Werke, Vol. X, p. 220.)

Luther also contributed mightily to the mass murder of 70,000-100,000 peasants during the German Peasant War (1524-1525), which his Reformation helped to spark. Consider the following from Luther: “To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Therefore let whoever can, smite, slay, and stab them secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful or devilish than a rebel…. On the obstinate, hardened, blinded peasants let no one have mercy, but let whoever is able, hew, stab, and slay them like mad dogs.” (Erlangen Edition of Luther’s Works, Vol. 24)

In 1526 Luther justified his killing of the peasants, saying, “I, Martin Luther, have during the rebellion slain all the peasants, for it was I who ordered them to be struck dead.” (Erlangen LW, Vol. 59, p. 284)

Luther furthermore blasphemed Christ, thus revealing his deficit of faith. For instance he said, “Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well… Secondly with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery.” (Luther’s Works, American Edition, Volume 54, p. 154, Concordia Publishing House)

As for his teaching on salvation and justification, the man was a theological crackpot who called humble contrition “hypocrisy” and who insisted that Jesus died on the cross so that we may sin freely without the fear of eternal punishment. Consider Luther’s own words:

“Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly… No sin will separate us from the Christ, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.” (From Luther’s letter to Philip Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, LW Vol. 48, pp. 281-282)

Each one of Luther’s charges against the Catholic Church were irrational and false. For instance he accused the clergy of “selling indulgences” in the confessional, which is not true. When penitents came to confession it was common at that time for priests to administer a penance in the form of having them place money in the Church’s treasury, because funds were needed to complete the Basilica of St. Peters in Rome. We might say a Peter’s pence was being raised, which should have excited praise, but this infuriated Luther because he couldn’t tolerate the idea of funding the “papal pig” and his palace.

If Luther had all the classic markings of a Freemason, it was precisely because he was an honorary member of the Rosicrucian Freemasons, which would explain why he rejected six books of the Bible and why he spearheaded his heinous revolt against Christ which led half of Europe away from the Christian Faith.

Had it not occurred to the German bishops that Luther was possessed by Satan? Certainly he was Lucifer’s pawn, tearing and breaking, and ripping the Church to pieces, because he disagreed with Christ. It was for reason that Pope Leo X dubbed Luther “the wild boar loose in the vineyard.” He was the classic hypocrite and Pharisee, constantly “justifying” himself and accusing everyone of what he himself was guilty of. What could be said of the worst pagans and infidels of history would especially apply to Luther: he had no “faith” or “grace.”

The Catholic Church committed no fault in its response to the so-called Reformation five centuries ago, which means there must be no apologies made. The papal condemnation of Luther in 1521 was truly the work of the Holy Spirit, and remains binding upon the faithful to this day. Any attempts to exonerate or “reevaluate” Martin Luther incurs the guilt of serious sin. Shall we exonerate Hitler too?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to German Bishops Hail Arch-Heretic Luther as “Teacher of the Faith”

  1. “German Bishops Hail Arch-Heretic Luther as ‘Teacher of the Faith’”? Mary, Theotokos, Mother of God, Destroyer of Heresies, help us against such bishops, we beg you.


  2. Michael says:

    His comment “the new church of the pope” is interesting as the modern ‘pied piper’ who tries to lure pious Catholics out of the Church – Cekada – says similar things.

    However I suspect the appeal to the German Bishops was his protoMarxist attitude that it is okay to kill any conservatives who don’t agree with you. I believe they are very tolrrant to left wing ideology.


  3. Roger says:

    Pope Pius XII and Fatima – Posted on January 26, 2015 by kathleen
    This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in her Liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. … I hear all around me innovators who wish to demolish the Holy Sanctuary, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her adornments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past. A day will come when the civilised world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God


    (Global Anti Christian Laws)

    (Peter denied and ran away)
    (Our Lord expressly told Peter, Get behind Me Satan)
    [69] But Peter sat without in the court: and there came to him a servant maid, saying: Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean.
    [70] But he denied before them all, saying: I know not what thou sayest.
    [71] And as he went out of the gate, another maid saw him, and she saith to them that were there: This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth.
    [72] And again he denied with an oath, I know not the man.
    [73] And after a little while they came that stood by, and said to Peter: Surely thou also art one of them; for even thy speech doth discover thee.
    [74] Then he began to curse and to swear that he knew not the man. And immediately the cock crew.

    The Church recreates the Life of Christ and this includes the Passion
    From this we can sadly see that PETER will deny Christ three times.


    These Shepherds have put their feet in two camps!

    But you cannot serve two masters; you will either Love one and or Hate the other; Light and Dark cannot exist in the one room, one shall overcome the other!


  4. JabbaPapa says:

    Quite a good post, Roger, thanks !!

    those who are unable to distinguish between rational criticism of a Pope’s human errors and omissions in his role as defender of the Deposit of Faith, and a treasonous attack on the person of the Pope

    …. sigh ….

    tum-te-tum …


  5. JabbaPapa says:

    A good article, though of course certain 15th and early 16th century Popes and the Curia itself at the time are not immune from sensible criticism, any more than the current Pope might be in comparison to the truly great Defenders of Catholic Faith who have been elevated to the See of Peter over the Millennia.

    Of course this certainly does not mean that men such as Luther with their imprudent theses should be “celebrated” by any Faithful Catholic as “teachers” worthy of being heeded !!!

    As a point of fact, though, not each and every single one of those theses is condemned — though obviously, taken as a whole Luther’s ideology constitutes formal and material heresy against the Catholicity of the Faith and the Eternity of Truth in Revelation.

    I was not aware of his links with Freemasonry — the absolute condemnation alone of that satanic sect and of all its members as being incompatible with Christian Faith is sufficient to forbid any manner of praises for that mass-murdering Apostate, Blasphemer, and Heretic.


  6. GC says:

    Indeed, Jabba, involvement with masons and rosicrucians seems more than a bit anachronistic. These characters weren’t clearly on the stage before the 17th century. And if Luther was truly sola scriptura what would he be doing with this esotericist lot if they even existed then in some form?


  7. GC says:

    I understand St Thomas More himself, on behalf of his sovereign, Henry VIII, was quite able to use quite unsaintly language towards Luther in response to Luther’s tirade against said king. Luther had said that he was at war with the Papists and a “Thomist king”:

    Come, do not rage so violently, good father; but if you have raved wildly enough, listen now, you pimp. You recall that you falsely complained above that the king has shown no passage in your whole book, even as an example, in which he said that you contradict yourself. You told this lie shortly before, although the king has demonstrated to you many examples of your inconsistency ….

    But meanwhile, for as long as your reverend paternity will be determined to tell these shameless lies, others will be permitted, on behalf of his English majesty, to throw back into your paternity’s [excrement]y mouth, truly the [excrement]-pool of all [excrement], all the muck and [excrement] which your damnable rottenness has vomited up, and to empty out all the sewers and privies onto your crown divested of the dignity of the priestly crown, against which no less than against the kingly crown you have determined to play the buffoon.

    In your sense of fairness, honest reader, you will forgive me that the utterly filthy words of this scoundrel have forced me to answer such things, for which I should have begged your leave. Now I consider truer than truth that saying: ‘He who touches pitch will be wholly defiled by it’ (Sirach 13:1). For I am ashamed even of this necessity, that while I clean out the fellow’s [excrement]-filled mouth I see my own fingers covered with [excrement].


  8. That Luther was the very worst kind of heretic is not in doubt and it is not my intention to exculpate him for his manifold crimes, but one or two small points arise from this otherwise excellent article.

    I would just like to point out as a matter of historical record that freemasonry began in the late eleventh century in Germany in the city of Hirschau (now Hirsau) in what is today Baden-Württenburg. It was in its earliest form, and as one would expect, simply a guild of stonemasons and it worked under the Benedictine order in Germany. It was, incidentally, responsible for the first buildings in the Gothic style.

    This simple, Church sponsored order of stone carvers and builders went from strength to strength and by AD1149 these guilds had developed in Magdeburg, Würzburg, Speyer and Straßburg. By AD1250 a grand lodge of these freemasons had been formed in Köln (Cologne) in order to undertake the massive task of building the cathedral there.

    From then until Luther’s time the Freemasons were simply that – time served masons (no longer apprentices but free men, that is to say, quite literally, free masons) who banded together in guilds (Lodges) under the protection of the Church as all guilds were. These Lodges also received support from the rulers of the German and proto-Austrian states.

    The first non-mason to be reliably recorded in the rolls of a Lodge was Rudolph I, Count of Habsburg from AD1240 and elected King of Germany (King of the Romans) from AD1273 until his death in AD1291, and fairly obviously his was a tactical and political membership. However, after him more and more non-masons became members of various Lodges for various, probably very good, reasons. The connection with the Church and with actual stone cutting and building, however, remained unbroken.

    So, Freemasonry was once quite respectable and approved of, as much as any guild was, by the Church. Luther’s ravings and rantings were directly instrumental in breaking that connection and allowing Freemasonry to become the silly, dangerous and anti-Christian cult that it is today.

    Luther’s heretical and blasphemous teachings seduced Herman V (von Wied), the Archbishop-Elector of Köln from AD1515-46, into a particularly vile and vicious form of Protestantism. Naturally he was deposed and excommunicated but not before he had managed, in AD1535, to hold an assembly of nineteen of the most prominent Masonic Lodges and infect them all with his own, and Luther’s, sick, warped and heretical beliefs.

    It was the beginning of the end for the rôle in the Lodges of simple freemasonry tied to the working of stone. Freemasonry was taken away from ordinary stone cutters and the Lodges became full of people whose only interests were the invention of outlandish false histories and a belief in heresies of the most disgusting kind. Luther was directly responsible for the theft from the Church of the organisation, property and structure of an entire guild of useful, skilled lay men. Those skilled men, hijacked by heresy, gradually left the organisation and sought refuge elsewhere, but little to nothing could repair the damage done to their occupational title – free mason – and that sin, too, should be laid at Luther’s door.

    The second small point that I would like to raise is in respect to Luther’s questioning of the validity of certain books of the Bible. In his case such questioning was, undoubtedly, inspired by his belief in satanic heresies. However, one has to bear in mind that the Bible as we know it is not exactly the same as the Bible that the Eastern Orthodox have, or the Copts of the Church of St. Mark have, or the Assyrians have, or the Oriental Orthodox have, or the Armenian Apostolic Church of Bartholomew and Thaddeus has, or the Ethiopian Tewahedo Apostolic and Orthodox Church has, or the Church of St. Thomas the Apostle of India has.

    Those books that one Church or another incorporates into, or leaves out from, it’s canon cannot be taken as a reliable measure of correct, or otherwise, belief, or of the presence, or otherwise , of heretical beliefs. Historical accident as well as divine inspiration can govern the selection of books to be included in the Bible. The on-going questioning by scholars of the Christianity and truthfulness of certain books, a process of questioning that started with one of the very first collection of Biblical books for the Western Church put together by St. Augustine, is not in itself any indication of heresy.

    Such questioning amongst scholars is healthy and natural and reflects the sometimes apparently inconsistent nature of the teachings and the need for interpretation by the sound authority of the Church of many passages in many of the books. St. Augustine acknowledged this and also acknowledged that his omnium gatherum approach to the books would need to be sorted out later on – a task he didn’t live to effectively finish, regrettably.

    In particular the presence in the canon of the Book of Revelations authored by John of Patmos has been questioned since earliest times. Its presence therein as being valid seems to depend very much on whether one interprets its contents as a historicist, a preterist, a futurist, or a symbolist. At various times in its history the Church has emphasised, confusingly, all four of those approaches turn and turn about.

    Questioning of the presence in the Bible of any of the other books is also usually a scholarly matter and, as I said, not necessarily any indication of heretical beliefs. It revolves around the question of whether or not the book in question teaches the faith as the Church knows it and whether or not the book itself is a forgery, or a mish-mash of texts from different sources, or a deliberate attempt by someone inspired by Satan, as opposed to God, in the past to deliberately introduce an error, or errors, of faith into the pure teachings of the Church.

    Under normal circumstances these sort of scholarly debates need not concern the average lay person who can rely in these matters on the teachings of the Church at any given moment. However, during the current Papacy it may be advisable, for those of us who can, to follow and scrutinise such scholarly debates very closely. At the very least we should closely monitor the way that the contents of, and the viewpoints expressed in, those discussions are received by the hierarchy – particularly those at the apex.

    These are just two little points that I hope you all find of some interest. Let me conclude by re-iterating what I said at the start – this little contribution to the debate is no way meant to exonerate Luther who was, in my opinion and the opinion of all true Christians, a psychopath and a heretic of the worst sort.


  9. The Raven says:

    For pity’s sake:

    * freemasonry as we understand it today is an essentially 17th/18th century fabrication (the claims to an ancient origin are pure fantasy) – the “Freemasons” of today bear as much relationship to the master-masons of the Middle Ages as the chaps pretending to be Vikings at modern re-enactments have to Eric Bloodaxe;

    * “Rosacrucian” is a term fabricated in the early seventeenth century and elaborated on in the so-called enlightenment.


    The man was an evil heretic, we don’t need to invent reasons to condemn the swine.


  10. The Raven says:

    I suspect that what John is forgetting is that the differences between the Catholic canon and that of the various Easterners is that the Easterners include books of the Old Testament that we overlook (e.g. some of the books of Esdras, the book of Henoch). All of the books that we hold canonical are part of their canon.

    The heretic Luther not only cut books from the Old Testament that we (and the Eastern schismatics) hold to be part of the canon (e.g Tobit and Maccabeea), but also claimed that potions of the New Testament should be excluded (e.g. The book of James).


  11. JabbaPapa says:

    The “history” of freemasonry is indeed obscure Raven, though it certainly had already started exploring esotericism by the end of the Middle Ages — if, as John has suggested, Luther gave it an impetus of heretical anti-Catholicism in the 16th Century, then he has even more to answer for than most might think.


  12. kathleen says:

    Luther was a man totally possessed by the devil, who used the devil’s “wickedness and snares” to putrefy whatever he touched. The author’s quotes in the article of Luther’s own words prove how his overwhelming pride led him to heavily embrace all the other seven deadly sins. But it is probably his grave sin of Presumption (willfully sinning in the hope of pardon) that he preached so brazenly to his followers that probably had the greatest effect of leading souls towards hell!

    In the case of Freemasonry, with its delving into esotericism* shortly before the arrival of Luther on the scene, the devil found a perfect ‘door’ through which to contaminate what started off in the Middle Ages as a harmless guild of stonemasons. The Masons claim to have exchanged the construction of buildings (of the great cathedrals of the Middle Ages) for the “edification of the world” by the spread of humanistic, anti-Christian ideas, instead of through the practical knowledge of building.
    Thank you John M. Joyce for exposing other parts of their history so well in your interesting comment.

    * Esotericism, magic, spiritualism, and all such meddling in the occult is extremely dangerous. The Church constantly warns against such practices.

    I remember hearing about Luther’s connection with Freemasonry via an older Catholic friend of mine I have mentioned here before. (Her family suffered greatly at the hands of the Masons when her father, a high-ranking Mason, left the Lodge and converted with his whole family to Catholicism.) Though what I had never realised before was the vital significance of this fact, in that Luther himself as a Freemason, was saturated with their godless** ideology.
    We are now well aware that Freemasonry has tried to infiltrate and topple the only one true force against this spawn of the devil, the Holy Catholic Church, and people in the ‘know’ have admitted to the membership of certain prelates to Freemasonry. Yet great Popes over the ages have emphatically condemned this evil organisation, calling it an anathema, and totally opposed to Catholicism.

    ** The Masons believe in a “Great Architect of the Universe”, a vague type of Deism. As Ven. Fulton Sheen noted, Deism was one of several rationalist movements that led, logically, to an overt denial of the supernatural order and, eventually, to outright Atheism.

    The treachery of those German bishops, mentioned in the article above, leads one to speculate that they are either secret members of Freemasonry themselves who have infiltrated the ranks of the Church to wreak destruction of the Holy Bride of Christ, or that they are, at minimum, willing flirts to masonic ideas! If, as Bishop Gerhard Feige, chairman of the German Bishops’ Ecumenical Commission claims, the “event and protagonists [of the Reformation] were long seen in a negative, derogatory light”, it is because they more than deserve to be seen in such a light. His claim that Luther was a “Gospel witness and teacher of the Faith” is just about as twisted as one can get.


  13. The Raven says:

    For heaven’s sake!

    Luther wasn’t a Mason. Freemasonry arose in Calvinist Scotland in the early to mid seventeenth century (a hundred years after Luther’s death).

    Masonry had nothing to do with the esoteric ideas flooding Europe in the sixteenth century – that’s entirely down to the rediscovery of the Hermetic Corpus following the fall of Constantinople and it’s vile infection of intellectual life in the sixteenth century, which set back science and medicine by centuries (i.e. Crappy ideas given a veneer of respectability by their Ancient Greek origin).

    And the Habsburg court around the emperor Rudolf was the absolute centre and source of all this hermetic rubbish.

    Freemasonry started in Scotland in a Calvinist environment that had nothing to do with chaps carving stone (they’d spent most of the century before the emergence of masonry tearing down the great monasteries and churches of Scotland).


  14. Roger says:

    Albert Mackay “The History Of Freemasonry” covers all of the various legends.
    From the Introduction
    “..the order’s ultimate purpose has always been shrouded in the self-imposed mystery that surrounds the organisation as well as the wild conjecture about it that arose from the fear of the ignorant..”
    “..Most scholars today believe the origins of modern freemasonry can be traced to ancient Rome, where an organization of workman formed under the name of the Collegium Artificum, or Collegium Fabrorum..”
    “..This transition from the operative to the speculative form of Masonry was completed by the year 1717, when the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons was Established in London. From England the change passed over to other Lodges as Freemasonry spread to the US, S America, and throughout the Rest of the World..”


  15. The Raven, if I may I must say that I disagree with your assertions about the origins of modern Freemasonry.

    The history of Freemasonry covers three phases. Firstly, the emergence of organised lodges of operative masons during the Middle Ages, then the admission of lay members as ‘accepted’ masons (as I detailed), and finally the evolution of the lodges filled with such ‘accepted’ masons into the sort of lodges that we know today, and the emergence of so-called Grand Lodges to govern them.

    The defining moment that the changeover to Freemasonry as we know it today became inevitable differed from country to country, but in Germany it is generally accepted that the interference of Herman V (von Wied), the Archbishop-Elector of Köln (Cologne), in AD1535 in the affairs of the Lodges was that country’s defining moment. The complete changeover to what some would describe as the modern anti-Christian Freemasonry organisation that we know today took some time to achieve after such defining events, but after such a happening in each country it was inevitable.

    The watershed for Britain is generally taken to be the formation of the first Grand Lodge in London in AD1717. The two difficulties facing historians are the paucity of reliable written material, and the misinformation generated by masons (and, I regret to say, non-masons also) from the earliest years after the changeover was accomplished.

    The Raven, it seems to me that you are somewhat at odds with the more reputable historians of the period when you assert that “Freemasonry arose in Calvinist Scotland in the early to mid seventeenth century…”. Much that was generally reckoned to be fact about the rise of modern freemasonry in North Britain is, when one looks closely at such like assertions, just a mess of deliberate obfuscation put about by the Freemasons of the modern era themselves and half-educated guesswork.

    For example, James Anderson (AD1679-AD1739), a Scottish minister and writer, fabricated an ingenious creation myth for freemasonry that took in the ancient Greeks and Euclid, Athelstan the king and St Augustine of Canterbury, and the Children of Israel and Jabal son of Lamech – see Genesis 3:20-22. William Preston’s ‘Illustrations of Freemasonry’ enlarged and expanded on this masonic creation myth and both men must have known that they were writing complete fiction and utter twaddle for they were well educated and in most other respects perfectly rational creatures. They very carefully laid a most confusing false trail over the actual origins of modern Freemasonry in the province to such an extent that, at this remove, it is almost impossible to state anything with any certainty of truth about the emergence of the movement there.

    There is very little truth in hearsay and in the type of rot written by the likes of Anderson and Preston and the rubbish spouted by the Chevalier Ramsay. Even Thomas Paine, the English-American political activist, philosopher, political theorist and revolutionary, spiritedly muddied the waters with untruths and false history in order to create more mystery than the simple history of the evolution of modern freemasonry could possibly impart.

    In our own time the incredible inventions of Robert Lomas and Christopher Knight have served to add further to the spurious aura of ancient mysteries and arcane knowledge that the Freemasons have carefully cultivated. In fact Lomas and Knight have spun such a fantastical tale that even many Freemasons themselves have balked at allowing their fictions to pass unchallenged and have publicly averred that their so-called history is “An invention by the highly imaginative authors … which has no historical validity”.

    In the end the only reliable witnesses are the few documents not written by masons that have come down to us in various collections, in the various european National Libraries and in the Church’s own archives. Some would say that the two exhaustive works by the great historians of freemasonry can be trusted to some extent – ‘Geschichte der Freimaurerei von der Zeit ihres Entstehens bis auf die Gegenwart’ by Joseph G. Findel (1861-20), which was published in English in 1865 as ‘A History of Freemasonry from its Rise to the Present Day’, and ‘Geschichte der Freimaurerei in England, Irland und Schottland’ by Georg Kloss (1847) – but I prefer to take much in those great works with a pinch of salt because both men were masons.

    Sometimes we can deduce the progress of modern freemasonry by looking at the history of other events but that is not easy. In the final analysis the non-masonic documents and the writings of notable and clear headed non-masonic historians across the continent of Europe quite clearly give credence to the evolution of modern Freemasonry from the original guilds of masons and equally clearly point to the rôle that mischievous Protestants played in this suborning of an ancient craft guild.

    That said, it has to be pointed out that the origins of Freemasonry in the British Isles are by no means as clear cut as its origins in Germany appear to be and nowhere near as clear cut as The Raven asserted in his or her post. The earliest official English documents to refer to masons are written in Latin or Norman French. Thus we have “sculptores lapidum liberorum” (London AD1212), “magister lathomus liberarum petrarum” (Oxford AD1391), and “mestre mason de franche peer” (Statute of Labourers AD1351). These all signify a worker in freestone, a grainless sandstone or limestone suitable for ornamental masonry. In the seventeenth century building accounts of Wadham College the terms freemason and freestone mason are used more or less interchangeably. The term ‘freemason’ also contrasts with ‘rough mason’ or ‘layerer’, as indicating a more skilled worker who worked or laid dressed stone (See ‘The Genesis of Freemasonry’ by Douglas Knoop – 1947: Manchester University Press for a fuller explanation).

    The adjective ‘free’ in this context may also be taken to infer that the mason is not enslaved, indentured or feudally bound. While this is difficult, but not impossible, to reconcile with medieval English masons, it apparently became important to the various Scottish guilds (See ‘Cracking the Freemason’s Code’ by Robert L.D. Cooper – 2006: Rider press for more on this, but be careful because the author is a Freemason himself and much of what he writes is just the usual rehashed twaddle masquerading as fact).

    Such evidence indicates that the same type of evolution as happened in Germany might, just might, be responsible for the appearance of modern Freemasonry in Britain. However, there is so little evidence that remains untainted by Freemasons that one cannot be definite about that or, indeed, about any other theory, including The Raven’s, on the origin of modern Freemasonry in the British Isles or in any part of them..

    All that said, we must not forget the Church’s teaching on Freemasonry. No matter how intriguing we may find the investigation of its history to be we must never allow ourselves to be seduced into its ways and its false beliefs. There is a prayer for the release of Freemasons from their shackles. You can find it at .


  16. Roger, the problem with Albert Gallatin Mackey’s ‘The History of Freemasonry: Its Legends and Traditions’ (AD1906) – co-authored by William R. Singleton, incidentally – is that Albert Mackey was a Freemason who served as Grand Lecturer and Grand Secretary of The Grand Lodge of South Carolina as well as serving as the Secretary General of the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States.

    His writings, which most vividly demonstrate his foolish credulity about the occult, cabalistic writings, Talmudic beliefs, hermetics and witchcraft, simply cannot be trusted. Most of what he writes is the usual Freemasonry twaddle overlaid with his own fanciful beliefs. Some parts are no doubt accurate, but which parts? Aye, there’s the rub, which parts? When dealing with anything written by a Freemason one simply cannot tell.


  17. JabbaPapa says:

    John :

    The adjective ‘free’ in this context may also be taken to infer that the mason is not enslaved, indentured or feudally bound. While this is difficult, but not impossible, to reconcile with medieval English masons, it apparently became important to the various Scottish guilds (See ‘Cracking the Freemason’s Code’ by Robert L.D. Cooper – 2006: Rider press for more on this, but be careful because the author is a Freemason himself and much of what he writes is just the usual rehashed twaddle masquerading as fact).

    Independently of freemasonry, members of Mediaeval Guilds had to be independent of any form of bound contract or service outside the guild — Apprentices and to a lesser degree Journeymen had to obey their Master(s) within the definitions of each particular Guild’s laws. By very definition therefore, becoming an Apprentice in a Guildrequired being free to start with, or to be released from service, often after the payment of a bribe — this is not totally unlike the modern system in Association Football, where clubs pay a certain sum to a player’s “owner” to free him from an existing contract, and acquire his services for their own team ; or can gain those services from contract with the player directly if he’s “free”.


  18. Tom Fisher says:

    Luther was a man totally possessed by the devil, who used the devil’s “wickedness and snares” to putrefy whatever he touched.

    Martin Luther was a fanatic. But like all true fanatics, he believed in his message. He may or may not have been totally possessed by the devil, but to say that he was is to let him off the hook. (If he was possessed, it wasn’t his fault). I tend to think that he was a human being in full command of his faculties, and utterly wrong about a great many things.


  19. Roger says:

    Lets understand the Anathema’s of the Church are those of Heaven.
    Luther died a Heretic and is in Hell. These Bishops are automatically excommunicated because they are preaching Luther as a teacher of the Faith.
    On this site all to often Traditionalists are decrying and reviled whilst Heretics and Heresies are applauded.


  20. kathleen says:

    Tom @ 10:09 yesterday

    No, I do not think that to say Luther was “totally possessed by the devil” is to “let him off the hook” of anything at all. He may not have been possessed in the spine-chilling way depicted such as by the child in the film,”The Exorcist”, or in the sinister cases Malachi Martin describes so vividly in his book, “Hostage to the Devil”, but he was nonetheless imbued with satanical vices and designs.

    A person who gives in to evil time and time again whilst shunning any inner voice to turn away from such vice, whose growing pride steers them to see themselves as a ‘god’ of their own making requiring no higher judgement, and who wallows in lustful delight in their sinfulness… well, all this will gradually lead them to be totally under the commands of Satan. IOW, Luther willingly welcomed the devil into his soul to take possession of it. He who believed himself wiser than Christ’s Holy Church and its Sacred teachings, and who mockingly extolled sinning in the hope of obtaining pardon, became a slave to the devil!

    “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.”
    (Gal. 6:7)


  21. Roger says:

    Luther was a FORMAL HERETIC who died in that Heresy!

    “.. a heretic opinion proposed deliberately by a person who is aware of its being against the doctrine of the Church ..”

    None of this nonsense about Luther not being possessed. His was a betrayal and denial of Christ no different from Judas who was FULL of Satan.

    John 13
    27 And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly.

    “The Church expressly distinguishes between ‘formal’ and ‘material’ heretics. A ‘formal’ heretic rejects the Church and its teaching absolutely and with full deliberation; a ‘material’ heretic rejects the Church from lack of knowledge, being influenced by false prejudice or by an anti-Catholic upbringing. St. Augustine forbids us to blame a man for being a heretic because he was born of heretical parents, provided that he does not with obstinate self-assurance shut out all better knowledge, but seeks the truth simply and loyally. Whenever the Church has such honest enquirers before her, she remembers that our Lord condemned Pharisaism but not the individual Pharisee, that He held deep and loving intercourse with Nicodemus, and allowed Himself to be invited by Simon. The spirit of the Church in her dealings with souls may be stated in St. Augustine’s words: ‘Love men, slay error!’”


  22. JabbaPapa says:

    These Bishops are automatically excommunicated because they are preaching Luther as a teacher

    That is a false statement.


  23. JabbaPapa says:

    On Heresy

    Click to access Heresy.pdf

    In the case of “formal” heresy, the person must know and properly understand what the Church actually teaches and then freely reject it.

    This happens rarely.

    More often than not, someone will insist that the Church has no authority to teach about a specific
    matter, say, the ordination of women, or that the teaching is not really definitive.

    As to “material” heresy, this happens every day, even among the most devout. Here a person misunderstands or misstates a key Catholic teaching, thereby unknowingly advancing a serious theological error. This happens when a person has a partial, distorted, or unbalanced understanding of the faith.

    To say that Luther was a “teacher” is a simple statement of fact, separate from his condemnation for having preached contrary to the Truth, and separate from his objective Heresy.


  24. Roger says:

    But it was Pope Leo X that condemned Martin Luther’s teachings.
    Exsurge Domine was issued on June 15, 1520. the Bull was opened with the words “Arise, O Lord, and judge your own cause.”

    Martin Luther who abandoning His Vow of Chastity

    The Lutheran (Protestant ) Supper without the Offering of the Immaculate Host. The Lutheran substitution of “a prayer of presentation of gifts, fruit of the earth and of the hands of men”
    The Offeratory is the Consecrated Host “the Immaculate Host”.

    The attack on the Perpetual sacrifice by Luther is NOT a satanic attempt to destroy the Mass and turn it into a Lutheran SUPPER.

    No sacrifice NO reparation to the Father and Satan has destroyed the Holy Sacrifice Of The Mass. Thats the teacher Luther the HERETIC.


  25. Pingback: German Bishops Hail Arch-Heretic Luther as “Teacher of the Faith” — – Easy World

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s