Luther burned the Summa Theologica!

[Geremia]

Luther burned St. Thomas Aquinas's works (including the Summa Theologica) on 10 December 1520, along with Pope Leo X's bull Exurge Domine that condemned his errors and excommunicated him. From Facts about Luther ch. 3:

Luther followed up this imprecation and invective on Rome [i.e., his Against the Execrable Bull of Antichrist] by publicly burning on the 10^th day of December, 1520, at the eastern gate of Wittenberg, opposite the Church of the Holy Cross, in the presence of many students, who jeered and sang ribald drinking songs, the Bull of Leo X and all his writings, together with the works of St. Thomas Aquinas and other Catholic theologians. On the day after this contemptuous exhibition, Luther preached to the people and said [in his sermon Why the Books of the Pope And His Disciples Were Burned of LW 31]:

Yesterday I burned in the public square the devilish works of the Pope; and I wish that it was the Pope, that is, the Papal See, that was consumed. If you do not separate from Rome, there is no salvation for your souls.

[Kephapaulos]

He was such an evil man. If I am not mistaken, and correct me if I am wrong, I thought I had learned that a nun had a vision that he is in Hell or that St. John Bosco had summoned him from there when he was debating with Protestants.

I remember what you posted on Luther concerning his ignorance of the Summa, but it was still no excuse for burning it since it was a vincible ignorance. If he had the Summa right there, he could have chosen to read it.

[Geremia]

Also, according to

• Steinmetz, David Curtis. 2002. Luther in Context. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic.,

Luther had no direct knowledge of the content St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica. Luther in Context ch. 5, "Luther Among the Anti-Thomists," begins:

Did Luther know the theology of Thomas Aquinas? Historians, particularly Roman Catholic historians, have raised serious questions about Luther's familiarity with the theological positions of St. Thomas. Joseph Lortz, for example, suggested that the tragedy of the Reformation was traceable in part to Luther's ignorance of the balanced synthesis of grace and free will in Thomas's theology. Luther lived in a time of theological unclarity, dominated by the "fundamentally uncatholic" theology of William Ockham and his disciples. Luther made a legitimate Catholic protest against the uncatholic theology of Ockham and Biel, only to press his point too far and fall into doctrinal error. Had Luther only known the Augustinian theology of Thomas Aquinas, argued Lortz, he would have found adequate Catholic resources to combat the decadent theology of the Occamists without lapsing into heresy.

[Geremia]

He was such an evil man. If I am not mistaken, and correct me if I am wrong, I thought I had learned that a nun had a vision that he is in Hell or that St. John Bosco had summoned him from there when he was debating with Protestants.

I remember what you posted on Luther concerning his ignorance of the Summa, but it was still no excuse for burning it since it was a vincible ignorance. If he had the Summa right there, he could have chosen to read it.

Luther's theory of "faith without works" is pure poison. He ridiculed priestly celibacy, denied the sacrificial and propitiatory nature of the Mass, denied transubstantiation, and violated his religious vows by marrying an ex-nun (who thus also violated her vows); violating vows is a sin against religion and God, and Luther's impure relationship with the ex-nun is also mutual profanation/sacrilege (just like profaning any other sacred vessels)!

See Bp. Sanborn's excellent "An Answer to a Protestant Objection" sermon.