It seems, rather ironically, that in the matter of Luther and his unwillingness to agree with the Vatican, there are a number of Catholics at CAF equally unwilling to agree with the Vatican on how to exercise ecumenism and dialogue.
- Status
Hi Steve.
If you consider the Catholic Church’s approach to ecumenism squishy and false, why care what it says about Catholics becoming Lutheran?
S
steve-b
Guest
A valid excommunication cannot be lifted posthumously.
[/quote]
Good point. Nor can the fact he was declared a heretic as well
[/quote]
Good point. Nor can the fact he was declared a heretic as well
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
The dude literally destroyed Christendom and rent it asunder. Reaching out to those misguided by his heresies is one thing but don’t expect me to condone the results of his revolution, which directly led to secularization of western civilization. He had a few good criticisms but did far more harm than good.
S
steve-b
Guest
Not every approach is true ecumenism.steve-b:
Hi Steve.
If you consider the Catholic Church’s approach to ecumenism squishy and false,
See what I mean about the consequences of squishy ecumenism?
But that’s not my question. If the issue was Church authority for Luther, why not for Cathilics today regarding how to do ecumenism?
For the record, I’m pretty sure a Catholic becoming Lutheran is viewed no differently now than pre-Vatican II
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
I tell you what, after “dialoguing” with Christians of other denominations on another forum for quite some time, I’ve come to appreciate Lutherans well above most other Protestants, as a general statement. Their spirituality and theology is overall much closer to ours, and they don’t throw Tradition totally out the door. Others, while not all, of the Reformed and evangelical stripes can be quite vociferously anti-Catholic. And their theologies are all over the board, with the Calvinist doctrines most offensive as a rule.
Last edited:
P
PJM
Guest
[
QUOTE]Luther-Bashing is Anti-Catholic
[/quote]
Friend,i must take umbrage with your position.
All “criticisms” I personally have seen are rooted in the HUGE impact Luther has led; which I suspect surprised him; as the numbers of non-Catholic Christians churches; each with its own freely chosen set of faith beliefs, numbers very are high indeed.
I suspect is father Luther were alive today; he too MIGHT disagree with you platform.
Just criticism is not “bashing”; it is sharing ones personal views that seem to counter your own.
May God guide your path
Patrick
QUOTE]Luther-Bashing is Anti-Catholic
[/quote]
Friend,i must take umbrage with your position.
All “criticisms” I personally have seen are rooted in the HUGE impact Luther has led; which I suspect surprised him; as the numbers of non-Catholic Christians churches; each with its own freely chosen set of faith beliefs, numbers very are high indeed.
I suspect is father Luther were alive today; he too MIGHT disagree with you platform.
Just criticism is not “bashing”; it is sharing ones personal views that seem to counter your own.
May God guide your path
Patrick
P
pianistclare
Guest
Their anger is misplaced.
T
thistle
Guest
Are you trying to tell us that Luther was not a heretic and we should not say he was a heretic.The bashing of anyone is anti-Catholic, as we are called to love all. Bashing Luther? Wrong. Bashing those who bash Catholicism? Wrong? Bashing abortion advocates? Wrong. Bashing a politician? Wrong. Bashing those who bash others? Wrong. Bashing anyone? Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
So let’s not bash anyone. Let’s work on loving everyone.
Note: I support the kind, efficacious, constructive correction of those who get it wrong. But that is in no way bashing.
God bless.
F
Fauken
Guest
I think it’s more like saying “Luther was a 
head! His mother was a hamster and his mother smelled of elderberries!”
head! His mother was a hamster and his mother smelled of elderberries!”
T
thistle
Guest
Okay that way of talking I can understand but we should not pretend that Luther was was not a heretic and caused major problems for people by moving them away from the Church that Christ founded and possibly preventing their salvation.I think it’s more like saying “Luther was a
S
SojournerOnEarth
Guest
I’m replying to various people here in defining Luther bashing.
The Catholic Church has reassessed Luther. Fact. Some of the older Catholic critics of Luther, based on Coechleus’ - in fact anyone writing pre-Vatican 2 - has been rejected by the Church and is not used and is not be used in discussing Luther. The current approach is to regard Luther as a “witness to the Gospel”. It does not take any digging to find very recent threads in which Catholics have been rebuked by @Don_Ruggero for using these polemic historians and then these Catholics ignore his post and continue as to do exactly what he has told them not to do. And people take Luther’s hyperbolic statements out of context and treat them as fact. Instead of approaching Luther as your popes -plural - have been telling you to do so since Vatican 2, these people continue the older, disavowed approach. That is not to say that Luther did not say some nasty things, some of which was spectacularly so. But I compare the approach of the popes, which is supposed to be an example, to the approach of some posters here and there is an enormous dissonance. Read Called to Communion and then read any recent thread on CAF with Luther in the title and tell me that the poster is following church direction. Read Pope Francis’s remarks at Lund and Pope Benedict’s at Wittenberg, and compare them to the comments made by these Catholics on these threads. My reaction to these ‘Catholics’ - in quotes because they are NOT in subjection to church authority - is disgust. They condemn Luther for what they themselves are doing. Utter hypocrisy. Instead of convincing Protestants of how bad Luther was they wind up convincing Protestants they are fanatical anti-Lutherans, as if the glorious beauties found in Catholic practice, art and thought are to be boiled down to obscure and disgusting quotes made 500 years ago. It reminds me of a seedy character who wants me to go to the dark part of the bar to show me dirty pictures. It is DISGUSTING.
The Catholic Church has reassessed Luther. Fact. Some of the older Catholic critics of Luther, based on Coechleus’ - in fact anyone writing pre-Vatican 2 - has been rejected by the Church and is not used and is not be used in discussing Luther. The current approach is to regard Luther as a “witness to the Gospel”. It does not take any digging to find very recent threads in which Catholics have been rebuked by @Don_Ruggero for using these polemic historians and then these Catholics ignore his post and continue as to do exactly what he has told them not to do. And people take Luther’s hyperbolic statements out of context and treat them as fact. Instead of approaching Luther as your popes -plural - have been telling you to do so since Vatican 2, these people continue the older, disavowed approach. That is not to say that Luther did not say some nasty things, some of which was spectacularly so. But I compare the approach of the popes, which is supposed to be an example, to the approach of some posters here and there is an enormous dissonance. Read Called to Communion and then read any recent thread on CAF with Luther in the title and tell me that the poster is following church direction. Read Pope Francis’s remarks at Lund and Pope Benedict’s at Wittenberg, and compare them to the comments made by these Catholics on these threads. My reaction to these ‘Catholics’ - in quotes because they are NOT in subjection to church authority - is disgust. They condemn Luther for what they themselves are doing. Utter hypocrisy. Instead of convincing Protestants of how bad Luther was they wind up convincing Protestants they are fanatical anti-Lutherans, as if the glorious beauties found in Catholic practice, art and thought are to be boiled down to obscure and disgusting quotes made 500 years ago. It reminds me of a seedy character who wants me to go to the dark part of the bar to show me dirty pictures. It is DISGUSTING.
N
neophyte
Guest
But you didn’t provide any specific examples. I still have no clue what it is you’re talking about.
D
Darryl_B
Guest
I see two things here.
- The Catholic Church is in discussion with the Lutheran Church. We are not in discussion with Martin Luther because that was near to impossible at the time, and if he were alive today, it would still be near impossible to enter dialog with him, he was mainly concerned with diatribe. The Lutheran Church is not a manifestation of Martin Luther, and Martin Luther is not a manifestation of the Lutheran Church, even though the only legacy of Martin Luther is the Lutheran Church. Most all other denominations spring from Calvin theology/ philosophy mostly indirectly now.
- I don’t like Martin Luther, I believe I am allowed to not like Martin Luther, and nobody should find that offensive. That does not imply that I don’t like those who belong to the Lutheran Church, it is just unfortunate that they base themselves on an initiator rather than their own existence. If that separation could be made between initiator and contemporary, then progress could quite possibly be made even further, but there is that nostalgia, which produces a mix of still largely Catholic values with a grumpiness.
A
Arkansan
Guest
Historical facts are historical facts. Noting them isn’t wrong because of the possibility that someone might take offense.
A
Arkansan
Guest
It would be helpful to know why the OP is so emotional on this question.
M
MT1926
Guest
Let me start by saying I totally agree with you. However, I think we need to keep in mind that this is a two way street.
I do agree to outright Bash Martin Luther is uncalled for. However, I think Catholics, on this site, are also getting tired of being constantly bashed over the head with Martin Luther and then being called to the principals office when they respond.
I would agree here that anyone outright bashing Luther is ignorant of his teachings. In my experience the ones bashing Catholics over the head with Martin Luther aren’t Lutherans, they are reformed evangelicals. More Catholics need to read up on what Luther taught because his teachings are actually closer to the Catholic position than the reformed position. Luther is actually in the Catholics corner, not the Evangelicals, in many of these dialogues.
I would say ignorance. But I would also like to ask why do so few Lutherans correct the evangelicals that bash Catholics over the head with their misrepresentation of Luther?
I also don’t think the intent was for Catholics to become a punching bag for anti-Catholics to pummel with how he single handedly fixed Christianity.
I would be happy to point you to my post where Don rebuked me for unfairly criticizing Lutherans.
After days of being beaten over the head with Martin Luther. I was showing an evangelical a writing of Martin Luther’s that showed he actually believed in Oral Tradition. The response I got back was “This (Oral Tradition) is a deception in my view”. I responded “a deception your hero Martin Luther also believed in”.
Don immediately rebuked me for criticizing Luther.
Like I said, two way street my friend.
God Bless
- Status