500 Years of Protestantism: 38 Things Martin Luther Wrote

[ajecphotos]

Some startling quotes from Luther! Never knew he said those things.

 

[Darryl_B]

No doubt that Martin Luther wrote some things that make us all cringe, especially about the Jews. Luther was a man just like the man in the photo below who is praying in St Mary’s Cathedral [Lutheran] in Eufurt Germany where Luther was ordained.

Do you think the Pope would enter a Lutheran church to pray and later celebrate Mass in front of this cathedral if he thought Luther was an “insane heretic”?

The Pope met with Jews, Muslims, Lutherans, and then Anglicans on that travel to Germany. What makes the Lutheran special, nothing, but I know the Lutheran is a proud race. So a picture of the Pope on his knees is probably a nice accent to that pride, and can easily be misread by such a proud race.

Humility is something I admire.

 

[redroseaus]

I’ve heard that he didn’t die in peace. His wife was witness but then she didn’t want to correct his path, so his followers keep going on his path…

 

[Novocastrian]

I am not sure if I would classify them as ridiculous because a number of them were rather violent and especially about the Jews, used by Hitler to justify his efforts to kill them. …] When I learned about Luther’s violent writings about the Jews before I became Catholic helped me relook at Luther and at the time I reasoned if someone can promote violence, should I listen to him on anything else.

So we can safely assume that you disapprove of Ambrose and Chrysostom?

 

[Novocastrian]

The difference between the Great Schism and Luther is a difference in kind not degree. Protestantism is heresy. Orthodoxy is not. I would be very reluctant to conflate the two (as is the Church).

You don’t think Orthodoxy is a heresy? I thought Papal Infallibility was a de fide dogma of the Roman Church? Vatican I anathematises those who profess otherwise.

 

[Novocastrian]

Reading and learning about Luther’s violent ideas played a major step for me in becoming Catholic because I felt that this stuff is hidden from me and from a majority of Protestants in reality. Why would I want to admire any man that promotes destruction of the Jews (or anyone else). I think most Protestants blindly admire Luther and don’t even really read the things he wrote.

Again, I’d politely refer you to some of the things that Saints Ambrose and John Chrysostom said about the Jews.

 

[Cat]

In 1999, the Catholic Church and the Lutheran churches signed a joint document of agreement on the doctrine of justification.

I think we laypeople should follow the example of Holy Mother Church and strive for unity by doing and saying things that bring peace and understanding between Catholics and Lutherans, rather than trying the lurid, sensationalist “Jack T. Chick” approach that only raises hackles and creates more bad feelings between us.

Anyone who has read various popular and easy-to-read histories of pre WWII Europe (e.g., The Rise and the Fall of the Third Reich by Shirer) knows that yes, sadly, Adolph Hitler used Martin Luther’s Antisemitism to justify his own Antisemitism. This is a tough-to-face fact that modern-day Lutherans have to come to terms with. But we must also keep in mind that Luther didn’t originate Antisemitism; he merely reiterated the common attitude considered “correct” and even “Christian” by much of the world back then.

My question for the more well-read historians is this: During Luther’s time, what was the attitude of the Catholic Church towards the Jews?

Is it possible that we Catholics also have to come to terms with some upsetting teachings and/or practices towards Jews by our own Church back then?

Keep in mind that Pope John Paul II apologized to the Jews for Antisemitism in the Church through the centuries. I think that the posters in this thread who said that they can come up with outrageous out-of-context statements by the Catholic Church can probably make good on that, at least when it comes to Catholic Antisemitism–do we really want an inflammatory written list of Catholic failings floating around the internet forever?

 

[JonNC]

Beyond this post, I choose to not respond to this thread. Regardless of the intent of the OP, the effect of this thread is obvious, and holds no value other than to incite conflict. For me, it seems it would be difficult to maintain an adherence to the 8th Commandment.

Jon

 

[St_Stoli]

You marked yourself as “independent.” You make it sound as if a CAF moderator added the word. I suppose I’m a “dependent” Catholic, dependent on Christ, on His Church, on the Magisterium, on the Grace of God found in the sacraments, I could go on…

That’s a little extreme, and I didn’t mean to imply that was the case. I’ve received mixed reviews on this forum, so in an effort to join in peace, it was suggested by some that I add a “qualifier/adjective” to my stated religion of Catholic.

 

[believerdoc]

Here is an article I put together that itemizes some of the Martin Luther’s most ridiculous comments. If you know a Protestant, please share this with them. It’s important that we know where we come from.

• 500 Years of Protestantism: The 38 Most Ridiculous Things Martin Luther Ever Wrote

Thanks

WARNING!!! We must be careful here. Statements taken out of context are DANGEROUS. Scared Scripture can be manipulated just as easily by dropping one line quotes. CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING!!!

 

[believerdoc]

Further divide? Remind me again of who divided Christendom in the first place?.. Oh yeah, Martin Luther.

Actually that is incorrect. What about the spit between the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodoxy.

 

[yosephdaviyd]

WARNING!!! We must be careful here. Statements taken out of context are DANGEROUS. Scared Scripture can be manipulated just as easily by dropping one line quotes. CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING!!!

Ok, let’s say that a few of these quotes can have more text added to put what Luther was saying in better context, does it change the hard facts that:

1. Luther taught violence against Anabaptist, Jews and Peasants?
2. Luther taught polygamy?
3. Luther modified Scripture?
4. Luther rejected the Catholic Bible?
5. Luther lived an immoral life, and therefore falls out of the box of true prophets of God?
6. Luther taught some other stuff that was pretty out there?
7. Luther’s reformulation had more to do with German politics than theology?

NOPE! Context and more words don’t change the fact that these quotes give us a clear picture of who Luther was. A man who thought that Satan was following him around. A man who was probably possessed by a demon.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Here is an article I put together that itemizes some of the Martin Luther’s most ridiculous comments. If you know a Protestant, please share this with them. It’s important that we know where we come from.

• 500 Years of Protestantism: The 38 Most Ridiculous Things Martin Luther Ever Wrote

Thanks

I have done the research on these quotes. From a cursory look over what you posted, all but two of the quotes come from the web page, Luther Exposing the Myth. Luther, Exposing the Myth is one of the worst Luther web-pages I’ve ever come across: context, history, and truth don’t seem to be any sort of factor in its analysis of Luther. The hosting website is Catholic Apologetics Information, an Australian Catholic website. Luther, Exposing the Myth appears to have been partially plagiarized from:* Verbum the newsletter of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary* in Ridgefield, CT, Spring 1985.

I’ve worked through the majority of the quotes, showing their context and historical setting:

Luther, Exposing the Myth: A Response

Catholic Apologetics Information knows of my review, and has never responded. You’re welcome also to respond to my analysis.

The goal of going through particular quotes is not to defend Luther as a Protestant saint. I see the study of any person in church history as an exercise in the love of God and neighbor. How do I love my neighbor in the study of church history? There probably are many ways, but the one that applies here is in my words. If I bear false witness against my neighbor, even if he’s been dead for hundreds of years, I am not loving him. I say let the people in church history be exactly who they were, warts and all. Luther certainly had warts and sins, but he did not “kick the cat” as well on the way to posting the 95 Theses. That is, he is not as bad as many portray him to be.

JS

 

[Novocastrian]

Ok, let’s say that a few of these quotes can have more text added to put what Luther was saying in better context, does it change the hard facts that:

1. Luther taught violence against Anabaptist, Jews and Peasants?

The Crusades?

1. Luther taught polygamy?

Parts of the Old Testament seem to do the same.

1. Luther modified Scripture?

The canon? Maybe, but c.f. Jerome.

1. Luther rejected the Catholic Bible?

C.f. above. Besides, the confessional Lutherans I’ve spoken to don’t reject it as such, but rather distinguish between canon and deuterocanon.

1. Luther lived an immoral life, and therefore falls out of the box of true prophets of God?

Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah.

1. Luther taught some other stuff that was pretty out there?

Well that’s a matter of perspective. To most people, the Resurrection is ‘pretty out there’!

1. Luther’s reformulation had more to do with German politics than theology?

By the same criteria, I’m sure one could see the Council of Trent in the same way.

NOPE! Context and more words don’t change the fact that these quotes give us a clear picture of who Luther was. A man who thought that Satan was following him around. A man who was probably possessed by a demon.

(1) Maybe Satan was. The poor man obviously had demons! But that doesn’t make him evil; after all, even our Lord was tempted by him in the desert.

(2) Do you really think that quotes taken out of context give a clear picture? Can you honestly say that you’d be happy giving any of us free license to take anything you’ve said or written in your life, without ‘context and more words’, to construct a picture of you and what you stand for? I know I couldn’t!

 

[steido01]

Ok, let’s say that a few of these quotes can have more text added to put what Luther was saying in better context, does it change the hard facts that:

I hope this is an admission that these quotes are out of context. Misrepresenting someone, regardless of whether we agree with them or not, is breaking the 8th Commandment. I do not know if this was your intention, but I am particularly displeased when people do this to generate page views and/or shamelessly plug their own books and works. I hope this was not your intent.

1. Luther taught violence against Anabaptist, Jews and Peasants?

Half-truths are the worst kind of lies. Luther’s response to heresy and non-Christians was the same as any Catholic of his day. He did not teach violence against peasants - that’s simply preposterous. He was writing against the Peasant Revolt, in which thousands of peasants had died. He hoped for a peaceful Reformation to the church, not a violent overthrow of secular governments. I would hope each of us would condemn mob-style violent overthrow of governments under normal circumstances.

1. Luther taught polygamy?

Oh, so that’s why he remained faithfully married to his one wife for life?

1. Luther modified Scripture?

False. Luther’s Bible consisted of all of the books in Catholic Bible AND the Prayer of Manasseh. Nothing was modified, unless you consider translation into German a modification.

1. Luther rejected the Catholic Bible?

False; there was no officially codified canon until the Council of Trent, which took place after Luther was dead. Luther questioned the canonicity of certain books - but so did some of his most vehement Roman Catholic adversaries, including Erasmus and Cajetan. In any case, Luther kept those books in his Bible, as I mentioned above.

1. Luther lived an immoral life, and therefore falls out of the box of true prophets of God?

Source where Luther claimed to be a prophet? Source where Lutherans have ever claimed him to be? Don’t build a Straw Man argument, like Jack Chick.

1. Luther taught some other stuff that was pretty out there?

“Some other stuff.” Ok.

1. Luther’s reformulation had more to do with German politics than theology?

I think this is a disservice to the dire situation in the Church at the time and to the real, earnest theology of Lutheranism.

NOPE! Context and more words don’t change the fact that these quotes give us a clear picture of who Luther was.

:ehh:One cannot have a clear picture without context. That’s the whole point.

A man who thought that Satan was following him around.

We each have our demons and they are quite real. The Enemy seeks to take each of us, and it is only by the grace of God that we do not succumb.

A man who was probably possessed by a demon.

Source?

 

[steido01]

I have done the research on these quotes. From a cursory look over what you posted, all but two of the quotes come from the web page, Luther Exposing the Myth. Luther, Exposing the Myth is one of the worst Luther web-pages I’ve ever come across: context, history, and truth don’t seem to be any sort of factor in its analysis of Luther. The hosting website is Catholic Apologetics Information, an Australian Catholic website. Luther, Exposing the Myth appears to have been partially plagiarized from:* Verbum the newsletter of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary* in Ridgefield, CT, Spring 1985.

I’ve worked through the majority of the quotes, showing their context and historical setting:

Luther, Exposing the Myth: A Response

Catholic Apologetics Information knows of my review, and has never responded. You’re welcome also to respond to my analysis.

**The goal of going through particular quotes is not to defend Luther as a Protestant saint. I see the study of any person in church history as an exercise in the love of God and neighbor. **How do I love my neighbor in the study of church history? There probably are many ways, but the one that applies here is in my words. If I bear false witness against my neighbor, even if he’s been dead for hundreds of years, I am not loving him. I say let the people in church history be exactly who they were, warts and all. Luther certainly had warts and sins, but he did not “kick the cat” as well on the way to posting the 95 Theses. That is, he is not as bad as many portray him to be.

JS

This. The 8th Commandment is clear.

 

[Publisher]

Further divide? Remind me again of who divided Christendom in the first place?.. Oh yeah, Martin Luther.

I thought Christendom was divided 500 years earlier…who was it that divided Christendom first? Oh yeah…Catholics and Orthodox.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I have done the research on these quotes. From a cursory look over what you posted, all but two of the quotes come from the web page, Luther Exposing the Myth. Luther, Exposing the Myth is one of the worst Luther web-pages I’ve ever come across: context, history, and truth don’t seem to be any sort of factor in its analysis of Luther. The hosting website is Catholic Apologetics Information, an Australian Catholic website. Luther, Exposing the Myth appears to have been partially plagiarized from:* Verbum the newsletter of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary* in Ridgefield, CT, Spring 1985.

I’ve worked through the majority of the quotes, showing their context and historical setting:

Luther, Exposing the Myth: A Response

Catholic Apologetics Information knows of my review, and has never responded. You’re welcome also to respond to my analysis.

The goal of going through particular quotes is not to defend Luther as a Protestant saint. I see the study of any person in church history as an exercise in the love of God and neighbor. How do I love my neighbor in the study of church history? There probably are many ways, but the one that applies here is in my words. If I bear false witness against my neighbor, even if he’s been dead for hundreds of years, I am not loving him. I say let the people in church history be exactly who they were, warts and all. Luther certainly had warts and sins, but he did not “kick the cat” as well on the way to posting the 95 Theses. That is, he is not as bad as many portray him to be.

JS

I was wondering when you would post

It seems it’s always easier to go ad-hominem on a person. We (Catholics) know this really well in the figure of the Pope, who is probably the single person (And Office) most attacked in Christianity. And mostly from fellow Christians as well. Not to excuse this type of post, but it is easy to get carried away by anger. We need to be more conscious in our zeal and sensitive to the dignity of the other person (Hate the sin, love the sinner).

Regardless, we do need to learn how to turn the other cheek when being defensive and instead of attacking in the manner of this post - we should attack with charity and defend in love and truth.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I thought Christendom was divided 500 years earlier…who was it that divided Christendom first? Oh yeah…Catholics and Orthodox.

Even further back than that,

Arians, Docetists, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, et. al. They divided as well.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Firstly, this is one of the least charitable threads I’ve seen on CAF (and there are many); but I am heartened by the graciousness of my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters who have seen through this decidedly ill-intentioned OP and posted in defense of their Lutheran friends. We, as Christians, should never bear false witness against our neighbor.

I was very interested to read the OP and the thread, and I have bookmarked the OP’s website and recommended it to others. I’m pleased that Mr. Gray has joined our discussions with this information.

So there.

Secondly, this particular post may be the single most foolish thing I’ve read today. Pietro, do you realize that the name “Lutheran” was a label attached to us by Rome? The Reformers called themselves Evangelical Catholics. For simple identification, we have adopted the originally prejorative label (like Chicago Bears fans calling Green Bay Packers fans “Cheeseheads,” and the Packers fans owning it).

A quick scan of the yellow pages in my area has revealed the following:

Grace Lutheran Church
Resurrection Lutheran Church
St. Philip Lutheran Church
Good Shepherd Lutheran Church

Well, you get the idea. So, you have simply “owned” the “prejorative [sic] label”? Why? We don’t call ourselves papists or Romish just because these epithets (and worse) have been hurled at us.

Bottom line: we do not follow Paul, nor Apollos, nor a Pope, nor Luther - we follow Christ.

Augustinians, Dominicans and Franciscans take those monikers out of respect for the founders of the orders they join even though they would say that they ultimately follow Christ. So, I think it is pretty fair to say that Lutherans have embraced the spirit of Luther in much the same manner. The problem now, however, is that evidence like that posted in the OP (and by Dave Armstrong and others) is pretty damning. But instead of disavowing the pathetic Luther, you have doubled down. Well, you own the whole truckload now.

Knowing what we know today about the man, I would be embarrassed to be associated with him. But you wear his name with pride. I think that is very telling, frankly.

We profess the Augsburg Confession and the other works of the Book of Concord to be a right reflection of the Christian faith; we could care less about what Luther said (especially out of context). The Reformation was a movement; it was not the brainchild of one Martin Luther - he did not “found” anything (that is giving FAR too much credit to a humble German monk!).

Yeah, this is like Planned Parenthood advocates trying to disavow the eugenics of Margaret Sanger. Sorry, but I’m not buying the argument. So, while I grant that individual Lutherans are not anti-semites or think the pope is the anti-Christ, etc., and that Lutheranism as a collective body may have also disavowed these things to varying degrees, the fact remains that Lutheranism was off track from the moment of its inception, and he set you on a path or trajectory that is off the rails to this day.

Jesus founded one Church upon one rock, and Luther was not it. Period.