500 Years of Protestantism: 38 Things Martin Luther Wrote

[Isaiah45_9]

Luther translated the Bible into German. The Mass was said in Latin for a brief time but later translated into German, also. It would be interesting to find out if the Eastern Church used vernacular at the time of the Schism. I understood that Luther/ Lutherans and Anglicans were the first European Christians to read the Bible and hold Mass in native languages. Yes?

I believe Huss and the Bohemians were first.

 

[steve_b]

Luther translated the Bible into German.

There were already translations in German before he was even conceived. He was a self absorbed, full of himself guy who thought he was the only one who could write good German. Ever read his famous piece on translation? He admits adding “sola” to faith where it wasn’t in the original texts,

"Returning to the issue at hand, if your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word “alone” (sola), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an *** are the same thing.”

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt

That’s from the Father of Lutheranism in particular & the Protestant revolt in general.
E:
The Mass was said in Latin for a brief time but later translated into German, also. It would be interesting to find out if the Eastern Church used vernacular at the time of the Schism.

pre schism, the Latin part of the Church used Latin, the Greek part of the Church used Greek, and there are parts of the Church that use Aramaic.
E:
I understood that Luther/ Lutherans and Anglicans were the first European Christians to read the Bible and hold Mass in native languages. Yes?

The first printed bible in German was 1466, (before Luther was conceived) using the printing press invented by Gutenberg. Known as the Mentel Bible, this Bibel was a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate. Printed in Strassburg, the Mentel Bible appeared in 18 editions. Luther’s translation was in 1522.

As you know before the printing press everything was hand written.

 

[JonNC]

The Church has used both species for as long as it has existed, but has never made it a requirement because Jesus is truly present in both species. This was not an influence of Luther on the Catholic Church.

While not particularly caring for concommitance, the main complaint of the Reformers was the withholding of the cup from the laity, which, in our view, is contrary to Christ’s call that we eat and drink, “And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.” I have no doubt that if someone only eats the host, he/she is getting the full benefit of the sacrament, but to intentionally withhold it seems contrary to the obligation of the Church to administer the sacraments.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

Luther translated the Bible into German. The Mass was said in Latin for a brief time but later translated into German, also. It would be interesting to find out if the Eastern Church used vernacular at the time of the Schism. I understood that Luther/ Lutherans and Anglicans were the first European Christians to read the Bible and hold Mass in native languages. Yes?

What does this have to do with Luther influencing the Catholic Church?

Anyway, the notion that Luther was the first to translate the Bible into the vernacular is a myth.

*"Versions of the whole or parts of the Bible in the language of the common people first appeared in Germany in the eighth century, in France and Hungary in the twelfth, and Italy, Spain, Holland, Poland and Bohemia in the thirteenth century. (Catholic Encyclopedia.)

In the 1500’s in Italy, there were more than 40 vernacular editions of the Bible. France had 18 vernacular editions before 1547, and Spain began publishing editions in 1478, with full approval of the Spanish Inquisition.

In all, 198 editions of the Bible were in the language of the laity, 626 editions all together, and all before the first Protestant version, and all having the full approval of the Church.* (Where We Got the Bible, TAN Publishers)

 

[EvangelCatholic]

What does this have to do with Luther influencing the Catholic Church?

Anyway, the notion that Luther was the first to translate the Bible into the vernacular is a myth.

*"Versions of the whole or parts of the Bible in the language of the common people first appeared in Germany in the eighth century, in France and Hungary in the twelfth, and Italy, Spain, Holland, Poland and Bohemia in the thirteenth century. (Catholic Encyclopedia.)

In the 1500’s in Italy, there were more than 40 vernacular editions of the Bible. France had 18 vernacular editions before 1547, and Spain began publishing editions in 1478, with full approval of the Spanish Inquisition.

In all, 198 editions of the Bible were in the language of the laity, 626 editions all together, and all before the first Protestant version, and all having the full approval of the Church.* (Where We Got the Bible, TAN Publishers)

Isn’t it remarkable that Vatican 2 adopted the practices of Lutherans and Anglicans regarding vernacular Mass? Communion in both kinds? I ask that question since Lutherans, in general almost immediately followed Vatican 2 on free-standing altars. Yet we are fully aware that free-standing altars were in place especially by Anglicans centuries before 1965.

We are either influenced by one another or we mutually come to realize that change is important and necessary.

This spirit of change within the Church will be furthered by Pope Francis, I am convinced.

 

[Peter_J]

How about listing ALL THOSE changes attributable to Luther.

Thanks, but I think I’ll probably pass on that (but could possibly change my mind).

 

[SteveVH]

Isn’t it remarkable that Vatican 2 adopted the practices of Lutherans and Anglicans regarding vernacular Mass? Communion in both kinds? I ask that question since Lutherans, in general almost immediately followed Vatican 2 on free-standing altars. Yet we are fully aware that free-standing altars were in place especially by Anglicans centuries before 1965.

We are either influenced by one another or we mutually come to realize that change is important and necessary.

This spirit of change within the Church will be furthered by Pope Francis, I am convinced.

Is there any reference in the Vatican II documents that would even hint at this being a reason for the change in the liturgy, or is this speculation on your part? I haven’t gone to the trouble to find out but I’m about 99.99% sure that it was not due to either Lutheran or Anglican influence.
I am sure the reasoning behind the change is stated very clearly and very precisely in the Vatican II documents. For the most part the changes were put in place to facilitate full and active participation in the liturgy by the congregation.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Is there any reference in the Vatican II documents that would even hint at this being a reason for the change in the liturgy, or is this speculation on your part? I haven’t gone to the trouble to find out but I’m about 99.99% sure that it was not due to either Lutheran or Anglican influence.
I am sure the reasoning behind the change is stated very clearly and very precisely in the Vatican II documents. For the most part the changes were put in place to facilitate full and active participation in the liturgy by the congregation.

You don’t see the connection between Vatican II and the beginning of the Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue in 1965?

Lutherans could say that we adopted free-standing altars entirely as a coincident.

 

[SteveVH]

While not particularly caring for concommitance, the main complaint of the Reformers was the withholding of the cup from the laity, which, in our view, is contrary to Christ’s call that we eat and drink, “And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.” I have no doubt that if someone only eats the host, he/she is getting the full benefit of the sacrament, but to intentionally withhold it seems contrary to the obligation of the Church to administer the sacraments.

Jon

But both species have always been allowed. There are various reasons that one might receive under one species, which has always been considered valid. The intention was never to “withhold” anything from the congregation.

And if, as you say, one is getting the full benefit of the sacrament then the Church is upholding its obligation to administer the sacraments. Anyway, here’s a blurb from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“It may be stated as a general fact, that down to the twelfth century, in the West as well as in the East, public Communion in the churches was ordinarily administered and received under both kinds. That such was the practice in Apostolic times is implied in 1 Corinthians 11:28 (see above), nor does the abbreviated reference to the “breaking of bread” in the Acts of the Apostles (ii, 46) prove anything to the contrary. The witness to the same effect for the sub-Apostolic and subsequent ages are too numerous, and the fact itself too clearly beyond dispute, to require that the evidence should be cited here. But side by side with the regular liturgical usage of Communion sub utraque, there existed from the earlist times the custom of communicating in certain cases under one kind alone. This custom is exemplified (1) in the not infrequent practice of private domestic Communion, portion of the Eucharistic bread being brought by the faithful to their homes and there reserved for this purpose; (2) in the Communion of the sick, which was usually administered under the species of bread alone; (3) in the Communion of children which was usually given, even in the churches, under the species of wine alone, but sometimes under the species of bread alone; (4) in the Communion under the species of bread alone at the Mass of the Presanctified, and as an optional practice, in some churches on ordinary occasions.”

 

[steve_b]

Thanks, but I think I’ll probably pass on that (but could possibly change my mind).

Now wait a minute

does that mean that when you wrote

I just want to stress that Catholics have changed a lot in the last 5 centuries, and a good chunk of that was in response to Luther’s criticisms.

you don’t want to defend that? I don’t blame you if you didn’t

 

[SteveVH]

You don’t see the connection between Vatican II and the beginning of the Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue in 1965?

Lutherans could say that we adopted free-standing altars entirely as a coincident.

No doubt that the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue was a good thing, and long over due. But the items that were discussed had nothing to do with liturgy, as far as I can tell:

I. The Status of the Nicene Creed as Dogma of the Church (1965)
II. One Baptism for the Remission of Sins (1966)
III. The Eucharist as Sacrifice (1968)
IV. Eucharist and Ministry (1970)
V. Papal Primacy and the Universal Church (1973)
VI. Teaching Authority & Infallibility in the Church (1978)
VII. Justification by Faith (1983)
VIII. The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary (1990)
IX. Scripture and Tradition (1995)
X. The Church as Koinonia of Salvation: Its Structures and Ministries (2004)
XI. The Hope for Eternal Life (2010)

Maybe you have other information.

 

[pocohombre]

Now wait a minute

does that mean that when you wrote

I just want to stress that Catholics have changed a lot in the last 5 centuries, and a good chunk of that was in response to Luther’s criticisms.

you don’t want to defend that? I don’t blame you if you didn’t

What was the counter reformation? Was it good, the fruits thereof ? Who were the Jesuits and what good did they bring to win back “lutherans” ? What did they change for they were successful but certainly not because they maintained the status quo or same modus operandi.

 

[TertiumQuid]

History presents few characters that have suffered more senseless misrepresentation, even bald caricature, than Tetzel.

The historical record, even from Catholic sources, proves that Tetzel was a main factor that sparked the Reformation:

Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar states,

“…in his sermons he advocated a certain opinion held by some Schoolmen (though in no sense a doctrine of the Church), viz. that an indulgence gained for the departed was at once and infallibly applied to this or that soul for whom it was destined.”(Luther 1, p. 343).

Grisar cites Cardinal Cajetan as a “great theologian” against Tetzel’s teaching on this (also claiming Tetzel “was no great theologian”). Grisar though admits “the more highly placed Indulgence Commissaries did not scruple, in their official proclamations, to set forth as certain this doubtful scholastic opinion” (p. 344). Catholic historians defending Tetzel place the blame for Tetzel’s doctrinal error on “vague scholastic opinion.” this sort of apologetic though downplays the fact that during this time period there was no official doctrine or dogma as to the effect of the indulgence upon those in Purgatory.

“There is little doubt that Tetzel’s preaching was well summed up in the phrase, ‘a coin in the box opens heaven to your soul,’ and there is no doubt either that the deal between Albrecht and the Curia as well as the lively trade in indulgences would have been condemned as the worst type of simony in the early Church” [Joseph Lortz, *The Reformation, a Problem for Today (Maryland: The Newman Press, 1964), p. 79].

Also, here are some direct statements from Tetzel:



EXTRACT FROM SERMON GIVEN BY TETZEL TO PAROCHIAL CLERGY AS PATTERN FOR INDULGENCE PREACHING

From the Latin. Gieseler: Ecclesiastical History, Vol. V., pp. 225-26.
The Elector of Mainz undertook, for one-half the proceeds, the sale of indulgences in his own vast archiepiscopal provinces.Mainz and Magdeburg. The Instructio Summaria, issued to his sub-commissioners, sets forth with exactness the nature and extent of the indulgence, together with the necessity for contrition and confession and other spiritual preparations, without which the indulgence is valueless. The subcommissioners appealed in turn to the parochial priests, and there are extant portions of another Instructio Summaria, issued by John Tetzel to the priests of his territory, exhorting them to prepare the minds of their parishioners for indulgences; and with these instructions he sent them pattern sermons, of which the following is an example:

You may obtain letters of safe conduct from the vicar of our Lord Jesus Christ, by means of which you are able to liberate your soul from the hands of the enemy, and convey it by means of contrition and confession, safe and secure from all pains of Purgatory, into the happy kingdom. For know, that in these letters are stamped and engraven all the merits of Christ’s passion there laid bare. Consider, that for each and every mortal sin it is necessary to undergo seven years of penitence after confession and contrition, either in this life or in Purgatory.
How many mortal sins are committed in a day, how many in a week, how many in a month, how many in a year, how many in the whole extent of life! They are well-nigh numberless, and those that commit them must needs suffer endless punishment in the burning pains of Purgatory.
But with these confessional letters you will be able at any time in life to obtain full indulgence for all penalties imposed upon you, in all cases except the four reserved to the Apostolic See. Thence throughout your whole life, whenever you wish to make confession, you may receive the same remission, except in cases reserved to the Pope, and afterwards, at the hour of death, a full indulgence as to all penalties and sins, and your share of all spiritual blessings that exist in the church militant and all its members.
Do you not know that when it is necessary for anyone to go to Rome, or undertake any other dangerous journey, he takes his money to a broker and gives a certain per cent—five or six or ten—in order that at Rome or elsewhere he may receive again his funds intact, by means of the letters of this same broker? Are you not willing, then, for the fourth part of a florin, to obtain these letters, by virtue of which you may bring, not your money, but your divine and immortal soul, safe and sound into the land of Paradise?

JS

 

[TertiumQuid]

Returning to the issue at hand, if your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word “alone” (sola), say this to him: "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an *** are the same thing

This is not Luther’s central argument against those who opposed his translation. The first section of the treatise is actually fairly angry, sarcastic, and humorous. Luther shows himself fed up with his critics. His anger was fueled against them for an ironic reason- they rallied against his translation, while at the same time utilizing it for their own new translations (a strong critic of Luther [Emser] did just that). They discredited him as a doctor of theology, a degree he earned in a rather quick period of time, and his academic abilities were above most. Indeed, he had done the work necessary to be taken seriously. His critics criticized his German translation while at the same time stealing it for their own translation- this infuriated him, and rightly so.

Luther actually goes on to give a detailed explanation of why he uses the word “alone” in Romans 3:28. In the same document, in a calmer tone, Luther gives his reasoning for those with ears to hear:

I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

Luther continues to give multiple examples of the implied sense of meaning in translating words into German. He then offers an interpretive context of Romans:

“So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of the languages alone when I inserted the word solum in Romans 3. The text itself, and Saint Paul’s meaning, urgently require and demand it. For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God’s law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Rather, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: “If Abraham were justified by works, he may boast, but not before God.” So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say “Faith alone justifies and not works.” The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.

Luther approached the work of a translator honestly. If Luther was attempting to radically distort the New Testament, his “doctored” work failed in many ways. Luther did not add the word “alone” to Galatians 2:16, nor did he remove “alone” from James 2. Even in his revision of the Latin Vulgate, Luther left the Latin of Romans 3:28 as it was, because the contrast was apparent

JS

 

[steve_b]

This is not Luther’s central argument against those who opposed his translation. The first section of the treatise is actually fairly angry, sarcastic, and humorous. Luther shows himself fed up with his critics. His anger was fueled against them for an ironic reason- they rallied against his translation, while at the same time utilizing it for their own new translations (a strong critic of Luther [Emser] did just that). They discredited him as a doctor of theology, a degree he earned in a rather quick period of time, and his academic abilities were above most. Indeed, he had done the work necessary to be taken seriously. His critics criticized his German translation while at the same time stealing it for their own translation- this infuriated him, and rightly so.

The bible wan’t his in the first place.
TQ:

This is not Luther’s central argument against those who opposed his translation. The first section of the treatise is actually fairly angry, sarcastic, and humorous. Luther shows himself fed up with his critics.

He deserved criticism
TQ:

His anger was fueled against them for an ironic reason- they rallied against his translation, while at the same time utilizing it for their own new translations (a strong critic of Luther [Emser] did just that).

Luther took the Catholic bible and retranslated it for his own purposes, and gutting it of 10 books, and he gets mad that he’s criticized? It shows how mentally unstable he was.
TQ:

They discredited him as a doctor of theology, a degree he earned in a rather quick period of time, and his academic abilities were above most. Indeed, he had done the work necessary to be taken seriously. His critics criticized his German translation while at the same time stealing it for their own translation- this infuriated him, and rightly so.

Luther actually goes on to give a detailed explanation of why he uses the word “alone” in Romans 3:28. In the same document, in a calmer tone, Luther gives his reasoning for those with ears to hear:

I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

Luther continues to give multiple examples of the implied sense of meaning in translating words into German. He then offers an interpretive context of Romans:

“So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of the languages alone when I inserted the word solum in Romans 3. The text itself, and Saint Paul’s meaning, urgently require and demand it. For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God’s law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Rather, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: “If Abraham were justified by works, he may boast, but not before God.” So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say “Faith alone justifies and not works.” The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.

Luther approached the work of a translator honestly. If Luther was attempting to radically distort the New Testament, his “doctored” work failed in many ways. Luther did not add the word “alone” to Galatians 2:16, nor did he remove “alone” from James 2. Even in his revision of the Latin Vulgate, Luther left the Latin of Romans 3:28 as it was, because the contrast was apparent

Luther was the blockhead. Where was He When Jesus established the Catholic Church? Where was he in 382, when the Catholic Church at the council of Rome established the canon of scripture, that we have today, that is 73 books we call the bible? This canon was repeated at Hippo and at Carthage (A.D. 393 and 397, respectively) and again at Trent… As we know, Luther on his own removed 7 old testament books, + rejected the epistle of Hebrews, book of Revelation, and epistle of James, calling it “an epistle of straw” because of Jas 2:14–26 conflicting with his personal theology on good works. That’s 10 books!

Then he added the word alone (in his German translation) to Romans 3:20, Romans 3:28, and Romans 4:15, that caused theological errors among the rank and file. And He’s upset for being criticized!!!

 

[Darryl_B]

To make this a team effort, I’ll add the (technically illegal, but in some places tolerated) sale of indulgences.

Pope John Paul II introduced the New Evangelization. This is also technically attributable to Luther, after all, see the similarity - Evangelical Catholic and Evangelical Catholic.

The relationship I draw there is exactly the same as those who believe Luther impacted the Catholic Church then and now in Vatican II. If you want to believe the Catholic Church is driven by protestants, it is very easy to draw the similarities out as I have done, but it unfortunately does not have any relationship with facts. The Catholic Church is getting about its own business and the protestant simply wants to feel that the Catholic Church is all about them.

 

[Darryl_B]

Luther may have not had a direct impact on the RCC, but I would argue that the indirect, lasting effects are tgere. It was a catalyst for reform in the RCC because they were now no longer the only church in town. They had to get it together, or run the risk if losing an increasing amount of people to Protestantism. The RCC has been greatly shaped by its opposition to Protestantism and, in certain cases, has been influenced by it. I don’t think Vatican II would be what it was apart from it.

Again, most of Luther’s original ibjections were valid and accurate. The Reformation is not solely the result of Luther, but of the Catholic magisterium that is so slow to acknowledge their hand in the reformation. Had the Church not been morally corrupted, had it received righteous rebuke, Luther would likely have stayed. Of course, I think other Reformers would still have left eventually, but that’s an entirely different discussion.

I see a problem that so many RC’s will not own up to tgeir faults past and present and their contributions to presence of Protestantism. It is this staunch disregard of self-falibility that helped spur past schisms to begin with, including the Great Schism.

Respectfully, you missed my subtle points, and I don’t think your history to be correct. It is an interpretation of history, but I don’t think that interpretation is correct.

There needs to be two things hand in hand, you have the one, it will not exist, you have the other, it will not exist. You have both hand in hand and you will have the licence to protestant. You need simultaneous Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides. Sola Scriptura is not enough to produce protestant, Sola Fides is not enough to produce protestant. You need Sola Scripture and Sola Fides to produce the status-quo we have today. Both contrary to Catholic teaching. But there is my licence, right there. Respectfully I am handing in my licence.

 

[Darryl_B]

Holy Moly.

I’m not sure if I can say anything that would convince you otherwise, but fwiw I believe you are mistaken.

No you couldn’t convince me otherwise, unless you had evidence that the Catholic Church submitted to protestant desires, and I don’t mean some of the wild unsubstantiated speculations that I have read on this post. I don’t think that evidence exists it could only ever be hearsay.

But Holy Moly will probably be sufficient to prove your point?

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Respectfully, you missed my subtle points, and I don’t think your history to be correct. It is an interpretation of history, but I don’t think that interpretation is correct.

There needs to be two things hand in hand, you have the one, it will not exist, you have the other, it will not exist. You have both hand in hand and you will have the licence to protestant. You need simultaneous Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides. Sola Scriptura is not enough to produce protestant, Sola Fides is not enough to produce protestant. You need Sola Scripture and Sola Fides to produce the status-quo we have today. Both contrary to Catholic teaching. But there is my licence, right there. Respectfully I am handing in my licence.

I say this with gentleness in sincerity. What do you know about Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide? I do not know the historical research you have done on either, but I imagine it is a misunderstanding of the original teachings, granted many protestants have strayed away from the original teachings due to their own misunderstandings and anti-romanism. It reminds me of the issue of the fillioque. A lot of the controversy is actually just an issue of semantics and linguistic nuance.

Sola Fide speaks out against the RC folk theology that was much more prevalent then than it is today, though it still is prevalent. It shows up in some areas more than others. In any case, the notion that if someone wears a scapular it will save them from the gates of hell just because they die wearing it. Or the idea that if you observe such and such a feast and visit such and such a relic and do such a such an action you will be as “pure as you were on the day of your baptism.” Does this not happen EVERY time after confession? Sola Fide is also not the idea that works are irrelevant to salvation. Jesus said a good tree bears good fruit. The tree is what makes the fruit, the fruit is not what makes the tree. True faith is a work of the Spirit and is followed by true repentance, Christ gives true grace, which then leads to true sanctification. There is a difference in saying that the grace of God produces good works in one’s life and saying my works are what merits the grace of God.

Sola Scriptura is not intended to be Scripture in a vacuum, void of tradition. The Reformers were actually looking to tradition as part of their cause. They especially drew from St. Augustine. Sola Scriptura was to say that Scripture, in light of the traditions of the EARLY church, and proper exegesis should be the final rule of faith, not the magisterium. Remember that in the Luther’s day the magisterium were using tradition as an excuse for all kinds of abuses. No one could say ANYTHING to rebuke or correct the corruption of the magisterium because the magisterium was the true interpreter of Scripture and contender of the faith, and so if they said it that was it.

Now you can say I have a “incorrect” interpretation of history, but you cannot ignore the abuses of Rome in the time of the Reformation. You can read the earlier writings of Luther and see that he struggled with the idea of the pope being corrupt and having to leave the RCC.

My last remark, in regards to the OP, there a large number of Saints and Church Fathers who have made anti-Semitic remarks, and who have misbehaved horribly towards Jews and Pagans. Does this in anyway invalidate the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (in the historical sense of those words, not the Roman sense)? No. If such things invalidated doctrines, structural bodies, or ideological movements, the RC would have be invalidated a long time ago, especially in the Medieval era. I would not invalidate the RC for atrocities for the errors of some men, though I will speak out against its unwillingness to critically self-examine itself. At the end of the day, friend, sin divides and the wickedness of many in the clerical ranks of that day ran rampant. If Protestantism was/is a heresy, the unrighteousness of Rome past birthed the monster.

 

[Peter_J]

does that mean that when you wrote

I just want to stress that Catholics have changed a lot in the last 5 centuries, and a good chunk of that was in response to Luther’s criticisms.

you don’t want to defend that?

Hmmm … that’s a good question. I’ll readily admit that I don’t want to be one of those Catholic posters who basically say anything they want about Catholicism, and expect everyone to accept that it is true. There’s already way too much of that – not just the post I was responding to (" … Martin Luther had absolutely no impact on the Catholic Church" etc) and not on this thread only, but on a great many threads.