Luther-Bashing is Anti-Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter SojournerOnEarth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nothing changed from before or after Vatican II. Luther is still in the wrong. Perhaps it’s not the best to call him out in all discussions, but I am also tired of him being accepted by the Catholic Church and “celebrated”.
 
Fauken said:
40.png
po18guy:
Full disclosure: Are you Lutheran?
Click to expand...
Arkansan said:
It would be helpful to know why the OP is so emotional on this question.
Click to expand...
On his profile, his religion is “Reformed” if that helps.
Click to expand...
She.

And I am not Lutheran. I have known Lutherans and ex-Lutherans, some of both of whom I have respected, others…not so much.
 
“MT1926 said:
SojournerOnEarth said:
v
Like I said, two way street my friend.

God Bless
Click to expand...
It had not occurred to me that Catholics might be frustrated with evangelicals using Luther as a tool to annoy them. I had not seen it.

We (the Reformed) are much, much further from the Catholic Church than the Lutherans. In our view the Lutherans only half-heartedly reformed. They don’t see it that way, of course. If you object to Luther, wait until you read Knox.

I am interested in observing how it goes with the Lutherans and the Catholic Church, because the CC is also knocking on our door. What can we expect, I ask myself.
Click to expand...
 
JonNC said:
40.png
steve-b:
Not every approach is true ecumenism.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
The answer is the same to both. The goal of Ecumenism is to end all the divisions from the Catholic Church. There is only one Church, Jesus established on Peter and those in union with Peter. And Jesus wants perfect unity in His Church. The Catholic Church.
 
SojournerOnEarth said:
We (the Reformed) are much, much further from the Catholic Church than the Lutherans. In our view the Lutherans only half-heartedly reformed. They don’t see it that way, of course. If you object to Luther, wait until you read Knox.
Click to expand...
I never said I object to Luther. Like I said in my post I actually use him quit often in my defense against evangelicals who will point to Luther as their “Hero” when it suits them.

As you state you are much further from Catholics than Lutherans so why would an Evangelical use a man who “half-heartedly reformed” as a defense? Makes no logical sense to me. For someone to point to Luther as the man who overcame the tyrannical Catholic Church and saved Christianity, yet they disagree with 75% of what he believed, is being hypocritical in my book.

Like I told the man I was in dialogue with, if Luther were alive today he would be far, far less charitable to you than the Catholics are.

God Bless
 
steve-b said:
40.png
JonNC:
40.png
steve-b:
Not every approach is true ecumenism.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
The answer is the same to both. The goal of Ecumenism is to end all the divisions from the Catholic Church. There is only one Church, Jesus established on Peter and those in union with Peter. And Jesus wants perfect unity in His Church. The Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t ecumenism be done in the way the Church says to do it? In the way you do it you have set yourself against the church and thus separated yourself from it. You have criticized, on this thread, the “soft” approach now undertaken. I think you are in schism.
 
SojournerOnEarth said:
Shouldn’t ecumenism be done in the way the Church says to do it? In the way you do it you have set yourself against the church and thus separated yourself from it. You have criticized, on this thread, the “soft” approach now undertaken. I think you are in schism.
Click to expand...
what?? The Church hasn’t spoken infallibly on any sort of ecumenical approach. You have this idea that because some clergy take a certain approach with ecumenism that the rest has to do the same. That is not the case.
 
misstherese said:
40.png
SojournerOnEarth:
Shouldn’t ecumenism be done in the way the Church says to do it? In the way you do it you have set yourself against the church and thus separated yourself from it. You have criticized, on this thread, the “soft” approach now undertaken. I think you are in schism.
Click to expand...
what?? The Church hasn’t spoken infallibly on any sort of ecumenical approach. You have this idea that because some clergy take a certain approach with ecumenism that the rest has to do the same. That is not the case.
Click to expand...
You are supposed to follow your leaders, even when they have not spoken infallibly. The ‘some clergy’ here are the post-V2 popes. Apparently as a Catholic you are free to ignore Church leadership whenever you feel like it? News to me. But that seems to be the prevalent attitude here.

CAF seems to have become a refuge and echo chamber for anti-papal Catholics who condemn Protestants for doing it their way and then define Catholicism as whatever they think it is, their way. People who reject the pope and his direction, Vatican 2 and the whole ecumenical approach now underway. Do you have another pope you follow besides Francis? Or is the office vacant?
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
The answer is the same to both. The goal of Ecumenism is to end all the divisions from the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
And the Catholic Church from other Christian communions. Because division is always two-way.
steve-b said:
There is only one Church, Jesus established on Peter and those in union with Peter. And Jesus wants perfect unity in His Church. The Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
And that Church exists wherever people gather around word and sacrament. Peter is not limited to one see, anymore than Christ is. The order of the keys, given first to Peter then to the rest for the entire Church is not exclusively in the control of the Bishop of Rome.
 
As a Catholic, you don’t have to agree when a pope speaks fallibly. Otherwise it would be a cult.

I’m not anti papal, but I know a lot of people who agree with the pope on certain matters and disagree with him on others. That is okay in the Church, because the pope is a human with opinions just like the rest of is and can be wrong.

The Church did not change after Vatican II. Whatever positions the Church took on ecumenical affairs before are still acceptable teachings.
 
steve-b said:
A valid excommunication cannot be lifted posthumously.
Click to expand...
Good point. Nor can the fact he was declared a heretic as well
[/quote]

Source, please?

And the pope could overturn either, I suppose.
 
Martin Luther was excommunicated by the Church, an unrepented heretic and a ferocious anti-Semite. He denounced the papacy, the Holy Orders, and the Eucharist.

In his work “On the Jews and their lies” written in 1543: Martin Luther wrote:

—to burn down Jewish synagogues and schools and warn people against them;
—to refuse to let Jews own houses among Christians;
for Jewish religious writings to be taken away;
for rabbis to be forbidden to preach;
—to offer no protection to Jews on highways;
for usury to be prohibited and for all silver and gold to be removed, put aside for safekeeping, and given back to Jews who truly convert; and
—to give young, strong Jews flail, axe, spade, and spindle, and let them earn.

He went on to call Jews: “full of the devil’s feces … which they wallow in like swine,” and the synagogue is an “incorrigible whore and an evil slut”.

Martin Luther never retracted nor expressed remorse for his comments.
 
Last edited:
You just leap at the chance to bash him, don’t you?

Is this following your popes’ example on ecumenical relations?
 
SojournerOnEarth said:
You just leap at the chance to bash him, don’t you?

Is this following your popes’ example on ecumenical relations?
Click to expand...
How is quoting Luther’s filthy works verbatim, ‘bashing him’?! Can we not expose his works to stir the hearts of those who ignorantly follow his theology, to reconcile them back to the Church Christ founded?
 
Last edited:
SojournerOnEarth said:
You just leap at the chance to bash him, don’t you?
Click to expand...
So now I see what you mean: you think that speaking of unpleasant facts constitutes bashing, and you have an odd fantasy that things recent Popes have said confirm that. You’re wrong on both counts; nothing the Holy Fathers have said can rationally be construed as meaning what you think, and your claims to the contrary reflect poorly on you.
 
steido01 said:
It’s been my observation that many Luther-bashers are converts from Lutheranism who suffered some bad experience in the church and now feel some need to vindicate themselves in their conversion
Click to expand...
Well, maybe, just maybe if any of those Lutheran pastors would have let us in on the real Martin Luther and his works, and how he really felt about the Pope, Jews (of which Our Blessed Lord is a Jew), his denigration of women, his obsession with the devil and farting, the removal of seven canonical books of Scripture etc. etc. then, maybe we would not feel the innate urge to expose these facts to those Lutherans who still have no idea. And, for those Lutherans who are aware of the real Luther and keep coy and mum on purpose… oh, my, dear…
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top