Luther-Bashing is Anti-Catholic

[KMG]

Are you familiar with the despicable things Luther published about the Jews, just to start?

 

[Randolph]

Here are a few direct quotes of interest:

—Hitler’s Education Minister, Bernhard Rust, was quoted by the Völkischer Beobachter as saying that: “Since Martin Luther closed his eyes, no such son of our people has appeared again. It has been decided that we shall be the first to witness his reappearance … I think the time is past when one may not say the names of Hitler and Luther in the same breath. They belong together; they are of the same old stamp [Schrot und Korn]”

—Hans Hinkel, leader of the Luther League’s magazine Deutsche Kultur-Wacht, and of the Berlin chapter of the Kampfbund, paid tribute to Luther in his acceptance speech as head of both the Jewish section and the film department of Goebbel’s Chamber of Culture and Propaganda Ministry. “Through his acts and his spiritual attitude, he began the fight which we will wage today; with Luther, the revolution of German blood and feeling against alien elements of the Volk was begun. To continue and complete his Protestantism, nationalism must make the picture of Luther, of a German fighter, live as an example ‘above the barriers of confession’ for all German blood comrades.”[60]

—According to Daniel Goldhagen, Bishop Martin Sasse, a leading Protestant churchman, published a compendium of Luther’s writings shortly after Kristallnacht, for which Diarmaid MacCulloch, Professor of the History of the Church in the University of Oxford argued that Luther’s writing was a “blueprint”.[34] Sasse "applauded the burning of the synagogues and the coincidence of the day, writing in the introduction, “On November 10, 1938, on Luther’s birthday, the synagogues are burning in Germany.” The German people, he urged, ought to heed these words “of the greatest antisemite of his time, the warner of his people against the Jews.”

 

[JonNC]

Are you familiar with the despicable things Luther published about the Jews, just to start?

Are you familiar with the despicable things Eck and other Catholics of that era published about the Jews, just to start?
I don’t say this intending “whataboutism”. I intend to provide the context of the era.
When we recognize the guilt within both sides ( though certainly not everyone on either side), we can then join in condemning the behavior and thoughts expressed regarding of the side they came from

 

[Randolph]

No one here is defending Eck—an anti-Semite and a Catholic theologian who was a counterpart to Martin Luther. Eck is a figure long forgotten. Few people today even heard of him. But there are people today who are still defending Martin Luther—an un-repented heretic, an anti-Semite and a revolutionary who wanted to destroy the Catholic Church.

Martin Luther had always wanted to leave the Catholic Church, and to found a new church. The Protestant Reformation, which Luther was largely responsible for, fractured Christendom. Setting aside the ensuing wars and deaths, there are now at least tens of thousand of “churches” that pave way for private interpretations of Scriptures so vast and so contradictory that Christ Himself can not be recognized.

Martin Luther did have a choice… Had he continued to pursue his 95 points of reform and work within the Catholic Church, he would have been a great reformer in the Catholic Church. But, unfortunately, he chose to leave and to denounce the Catholic Church, and founded his own Church. Now, 500 years later, we are seeing the rotten fruits of his labor.

“True” Ecumenism is an important, noble and sincere effort by the Catholic Church. An important part of its goal is to heal the wounds, the disunity and the fractures created by Luther himself and the Protestant Reformation.

 

[JonNC]

No one here is defending Eck—an anti-Semite and a Catholic theologian who was a counterpart to Martin Luther. Eck is a figure long forgotten. But there are people today who are still defending Martin Luther—an un-repented heretic, an anti-Semite and a revolutionary who wanted to destroy the Catholic Church.

Oh, I wouldn’t say Eck is forgotten. He’s in New Advent, minus the anti-Judaism, of course.
I think it is your own hyperbole regarding the wanting to destroy part.
More importantly, please name someone who has defended Luther’s anti-Judaic writings.

Martin Luther had always wanted to leave the Catholic Church, and to found a new church.

Source.

The Protestant Reformation, which Luther was largely responsible for, fractured Christendom.

The Catholic Catechism says there was blame on both sides. Further, Zwingli and the Anabaptists are not connected to Luther. Calvin was also not.

Martin Luther did have a choice… Had he continued to pursue his 95 points of reform and work within the Catholic Church, he would have been a great reformer in the Catholic

He was told to recant. Pursuing them would have placed him in the same condition.

Now, 500 years later, we are seeing the rotten fruits of his labor.

I think the Catholic Church has its share of “rotten fruit”, too. That said, I’ll let the Lutherans respond to this

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Most of my responses are backed up by Church links, NOT my opinions but Church links. NONE of them are squishy on the subject matter.

Links from which part of His true Church?

Since His Church is one from the beginning, those who left aren’t in the true Church then.

JonNC:

That’s the point, and it may be unresolvable between us.
I guess my question is what part of the Catholic practice of ecumenism is squishy and who is to blame ?

1. Point is, You haven’t opened the links I gave you that answer your questions.
2. Another link you didn’t open, describes errors to avoid, primarily errors 3-6 explain what I’m primarily talking about http://www.ncregister.com/blog/msgr-pope/8-modern-errors-every-catholic-should-know-and-avoid

Those who commit those errors are the problem I’m pointing to. You operate from the misnomer ALL churches are equal. No one is better than the other. So, here’s a test. Can you name which error that is, in the list of 8 errors to avoid? And why is that notion an error, and therefore a view to avoid?

 

[Randolph]

Eck was a Catholic theologian refuting Martin Luther. Of course, it is no surprise that he should appear in Catholic history. New Advent can post whatever they want—the same for any other Protestant websites. If you go to any church today and ask people if they have ever heard of either Luther or Eck, what would your guess be? Besides, you are discussing Luther, not Eck.

The Church made many efforts to reach out to Luther. But Luther declined them. His responses were often full of insults toward the pope. Luther went ahead and founded his own church.

There were methods which members of Church employed in reaching out to Luther that in retrospect could have done better. But the Church would never take any blame for the heresies espoused by Luther, other Protestant reformers, and the Reformation. Show me where in The Catechism of the Catholic Church that the Catholic Church accepts shared blame for the Protestant Reformation?

We are discussing the heresies and hatred espoused by Luther which the Church would never accept. If you want to discuss the sins committed by members of the Catholic Church, you are welcome to open another thread.

 

[JonNC]

Since His Church is one from the beginning, those who left aren’t in the true Church then.

JonNC:

Since His Church is not limited to those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, leaving His Church involves more than being in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Point is, You haven’t opened the links I gave you that answer your questions.

I wasn’t asking what others think. I was asking what you think. But I’ve already dropped it.

 

[steve-b]

Randolph:

No one here is defending Eck—an anti-Semite and a Catholic theologian who was a counterpart to Martin Luther. Eck is a figure long forgotten. But there are people today who are still defending Martin Luther—an un-repented heretic, an anti-Semite and a revolutionary who wanted to destroy the Catholic Church.

AND as an aside, Eck didn’t leave the Church nor divide the Church, nor teach heresy, all things Luther did…

JonNC:

The Catholic Catechism says there was blame on both sides. Further, Zwingli and the Anabaptists are not connected to Luther. Calvin was also not.

Calvin like Luther was a Catholic, as was Henry VIII.

All of them followed Luther’s actions. As time rolled on, THEN, more rebels rebelled from THEM creating their own sects as well.

Jon, scripture condemns that activity they committed, as it condemns those who do it and won’t return to unity. I’ve quoted the scripture passages dozens of times.

 

[KMG]

Yeah, I don’t see “St. Mark’s Eckian Church” down the street. Luther is the one with his name on churches…not Eck.

 

[JonNC]

Eck was a Catholic theologian refuting Martin Luther. Of course, it is no surprise that he should appear in Catholic history. New Advent can post whatever they want—the same for any other Protestant websites. If you go to any church today and ask people if they have ever heard of either Luther or Eck, what would your guess be? Besides, you are discussing Luther, not Eck.

Meanwhile, covering up this apparently important point, since it is brought up about Luther rather regularly. I am discussing the what the OP phrased as the Anti-Catholic Bashing of Luther.
Discussing Luther’s anti-Judaic writings is not bashing Luther. Trying to hide or minimize the context of the era he lived in and the Catholic anti-Judaic writings is bashing. So, I am talking about the bashing of Luther. If you want to hide or excuse Eck because of a lack notoriety in the pews, with the intent of making it look like Luther was alone in this, that is bashing. It is also the topic of the thread.

The Church made many efforts to reach out to Luther. But Luther declined them. His responses were often full of insults toward the pope. Luther went ahead and founded his own church.

The Catholic Church tried to have him executed.

There were methods which members of Church employed in reaching out to Luther that in retrospect could have done better. But the Church would never take any blame for the heresies espoused by Luther, other Protestant reformers, and the Reformation. Show me where in The Catechism of the Catholic Church that the Catholic Church accepts shared blame for the Protestant Reformation?

IT should. After all, it was the Catholic Church that was teaching Ockham and Biel in Germany at the time.
**Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
**

 

[JonNC]

We are discussing the heresies and hatred espoused by Luther which the Church would never accept. If you want to discuss the sins committed by members of the Catholic Church, you are welcome to open another thread.

The Opening Post

Over the last 50 years, in fact, since Vatican 2, the Catholic Church has openly worked towards repairing the breach with the Lutheran branch of Christendom. Pope Francis recently visited Lund. The 500th anniversary of the Reformation was commemorated. Pope Benedict visited Wittenberg. Nice things have been said about Luther to Protestants. It is also true his excommunication has not been lifted.

Luther-bashing serves to widen and deepen the wounds in the body of Christ. It is clearly against the Catholic reassessment of Luther, church policy and church direction. But some Catholics just can’t seem to help themselves. They further division and scandal in the church by these actions, but you will see Luther-bashing repeatedly done, as if there is some moment in the Mass where you have a Two-Minute Hate or there is a private devotion of We Hate Martin Luther.

I wonder if Catholics who engage in this behavior are simply ignorant as to how out of line they are with the Church, or if they know it and are defiantly trashing Luther, knowing full well the Church disapproves.

I think I’m spot on topic.

 

[JonNC]

AND as an aside, Eck didn’t leave the Church nor divide the Church, nor teach heresy, all things Luther did…

That is an argument you can make. IOW, the anti-Judaism is not the issue. Hence, when Catholics bring it up out of context in order to conflate that with the teachings that divide us, it is polemical and bashing.

Calvin like Luther was a Catholic, as was Henry VIII.

All of them followed Luther’s actions. As time rolled on, THEN, more rebels rebelled from THEM creating their own sects as well.

No they didn’t. Hank had no fondness for Luther. Calvin and Luther were never in communion together. So, they didn’t follow Luther.
But the charge that they all followed Luther (but didn’t) I characterize as the Lemming Theory. IT is as if Luther had some magical power of them. Nonsense. Each was responsible for their actions.

Jon, scripture condemns that activity they committed, as it condemns those who do it and won’t return to unity. I’ve quoted the scripture passages dozens of times.

No. It condemns division. The division is a two-way street.

 

[KMG]

Luther was a heretic. Eck wasn’t.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

AND as an aside, Eck didn’t leave the Church nor divide the Church, nor teach heresy, all things Luther did…

That is an argument you can make. IOW, the anti-Judaism is not the issue. Hence, when Catholics bring it up out of context in order to conflate that with the teachings that divide us, it is polemical and bashing.

This wasn’t about anti sematism.

Calvin like Luther was a Catholic, as was Henry VIII.

All of them followed Luther’s actions. As time rolled on, THEN, more rebels rebelled from THEM creating their own sects as well.

JonNC:

No they didn’t. Hank had no fondness for Luther. Calvin and Luther were never in communion together. So, they didn’t follow Luther.
But the charge that they all followed Luther (but didn’t) I characterize as the Lemming Theory. IT is as if Luther had some magical power of them. Nonsense. Each was responsible for their actions.

So why did ALL the others, follow the golden rules of the revolt started by Luther?

1. faith alone
2. scripture alone That is, a reduced scripture (scripture lite) minus 7 OT books

If they are all their own bosses, and no one followed the other, why did they follow Luther in this?

Jon, scripture condemns that activity they committed, as it condemns those who do it and won’t return to unity. I’ve quoted the scripture passages dozens of times.

JonNC:

No. It condemns division. The division is a two-way street.

That presumes both parties are equal. They’re NOT. NOT even close.

 

[Randolph]

Did you not just bring up Eck?

There is no effort from the Catholic Church to hide Eck. He stands on his own before God’s judgement for his anti-Semitic writings. I would like love to hear your evidence that the Catholic Church “tried to execute” Luther.

In your quote, #269, it also says about distinguishing heresy, apostasy and schism. Note the Church did not say anything about share blame on Luther’s heresies.

Again, pointing to Luther’s own words and works is not bashing.

 

[JonNC]

This wasn’t about anti sematism.

But that was the context of Eck. That’s why I brought him up.

So why did ALL the others, follow the golden rules of the revolt started by Luther?

faith alone
scripture alone That is, a reduced scripture (scripture lite) minus 7 OT books

If they are all their own bosses, and no one followed the other, why did they follow Luther in this?

Are you under the mistaken impression that Luther and Calvin held to the same soteriology?
The Anglican Bible in my parish has st least 73 books. We regularly read from D.C. books.
Zwingli and the Anabaptists held completely different views on sacraments.
They didn’t follow Luther.

That presumes both parties are equal. They’re NOT. NOT even close.

Sure they are.

 

[guanophore]

Are you familiar with the despicable things Eck and other Catholics of that era published about the Jews, just to start?

I don’t say this intending “whataboutism”. I intend to provide the context of the era.

When we recognize the guilt within both sides ( though certainly not everyone on either side), we can then join in condemning the behavior and thoughts expressed regarding of the side they came from

Luther was a product of his times, and his experience. The anti-semitism didn’t start with him! He received his spiritual formation from the CC, and we have to look to that source to understand him better.

But there are people today who are still defending Martin Luther—an un-repented heretic, an anti-Semite and a revolutionary who wanted to destroy the Catholic Church.

I don’t think any of us can say this. Just because his writings did not contain anything that indicates repentance does not mean that he did not have remorse about the consequences of his actions, or that he did not reconcile with God.

I don’t think that we can say he wanted to destroy the CC either. The papacy, certainly, but Luther believed (as Lutherans do today) that his faith is a valid continuation of the Catholic Church.

Luther witnessed excesses, abuses, and misconduct. The Catholic persons and practices he observed led him to this rebellion. It did not happen in a vacuum. The CC was not innocent either, or else a counter Reformation would not have been needed.

“True” Ecumenism is an important, noble and sincere effort by the Catholic Church. An important part of its goal is to heal the wounds, the disunity and the fractures created by Luther himself and the Protestant Reformation.

Any “true” ecumenism will take responsibility for sins committed by Catholics that created an environment for these wounds to occur. To blame everything on Luther and the Reformation is failure to look at the log in our own eye.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Really? Examples? I doubt that most Catholics today could even tell you who Luther was.

And if you posted a link about it, most of them wouldn’t read it!

 

[guanophore]

And if you posted a link about it, most of them wouldn’t read it!

That is a truly sad state of affairs! How are we to prevent making the same mistakes if we don’t learn from our own history?