Martin Luther the Truth?

[iNs1d3tRiP]

So i’ve recently come across a catholic apologetics website and I’m trying to figure out if it’s the truth, and worth looking at. More importantly, it has a rather extensive page about Martin Luther and seems to contradict about everything I have ever learned about him.

The reason why I find this surprising, is I’ve taken 2 semesters of Theology at Belmont Abbey College. I very much respect my professors, (one of them being one of the monks in the monastery.) and I don’t think they would really lie about Martin Luther if he really was such an innapropriate guy.

Here are the links…

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/matluther.htm

catholicapologetics.info/

If someone could look and see if this website is credible and represents the Catholic church like it claims I would be very appreciative.

 

[NonCatholic]

So i’ve recently come across a catholic apologetics website and I’m trying to figure out if it’s the truth, and worth looking at. More importantly, it has a rather extensive page about Martin Luther and seems to contradict about everything I have ever learned about him.

The reason why I find this surprising, is I’ve taken 2 semesters of Theology at Belmont Abbey College. I very much respect my professors, (one of them being one of the monks in the monastery.) and I don’t think they would really lie about Martin Luther if he really was such an innapropriate guy.

Here are the links…

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/matluther.htm

catholicapologetics.info/

If someone could look and see if this website is credible and represents the Catholic church like it claims I would be very appreciative.

People like Luther said many things that were recorded in writing. Like anyone who is in the spotlight much of their lives you will find things that are good, correct, bad and incorrect.

Keep in mind that the Catholic church views him as a heretic and he viewed the Catholic church as an apostate church. Here is a link to some of the anathemas or damnation’s, the Catholic church pronounced in light of the reformation from the Council of Trent.

[
(Link to anti-Catholic website removed per Banned Topics](http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/trent.htm)

If you are seeking the truth, then you will find it in the Bible.

 

[iNs1d3tRiP]

People like Luther said many things that were recorded in writing. Like anyone who is in the spotlight much of their lives you will find things that are good, correct, bad and incorrect.

Keep in mind that the Catholic church views him as a heretic and he viewed the Catholic church as an apostate church. Here is a link to some of the anathemas or damnation’s, the Catholic church pronounced in light of the reformation from the Council of Trent.

(Link to anti-Catholic website removed per Banned Topics )

So is the website I gave above reliable? I’m very much aware that Luther was a heretic, but I’ve never heard anyone say such terrible things about his character until I came across that site. (although being a heretic is nothing to scoff at.) That website claims, he added his own words to the bible and removed books which he thought were not important or did not match his “faith alone” view.

If you are seeking the truth, then you will find it in the Bible.

You mean I will find some of Truth in the bible. However, I will not find any of the truth about historical Martin Luther in the bible. I’m just curious if he really was worse than I already thought that he was. Not that it matters much honestly, just curious.

 

[SyCarl]

It can be easy to cherry pick quotes and statements to make anyone look bad. Just of the top of the head it could be said that the first Pope was a hypocrite who denied Jesus and was referred to as Satan by our Lord.

Not very attractive is it but each point can be found in Scripture. The problem is that while Scripturally they are true, they are taken out of context and leave out the good things, which totally distorts Peter. I am sure that a number of scandalous statements could be found by Jews or pagans about Peter. Perhaps to the effect that he was a cannibal, a common accusation against Christians of the time. One’s opponents are not necessarily the best source for a balanced view of any individual. The same cherry picking can be done on Luther particularly as more of his and his opponents writings survive.

 

[BRB1]

Here is a link to some of the anathemas or damnation’s, the Catholic church pronounced in light of the reformation from the Council of Trent.

(Link to anti-Catholic website removed per Banned Topics )

.

Yes … the Council of Trent is rockbed Church teaching based on scriptures and oral teachings of Christ and his 12.

Which of its many declarations do you find fault with ?

 

[iNs1d3tRiP]

It can be easy to cherry pick quotes and statements to make anyone look bad. Just of the top of the head it could be said that the first Pope was a hypocrite who denied Jesus and was referred to as Satan by our Lord.

That’s why I’m trying to figure out if this website is reliable? Is it propaganda or are the accusations true? Is this a respectable “catholic” website?

 

[MarcoPolo]

If someone could look and see if this website is credible and represents the Catholic church like it claims I would be very appreciative.

I’ve never see that website for Catholic apologetics. I prefer to go to the following for great Catholic apologetics:

Catholic.com
PhilVaz’ site
OurCatholicFaith.com
phatmass.com/
Catscans

In studying Luther, it looks like the website gives you a reference for his quotes. I’d follow the references to read the quotes in context. Or you could ask some Lutherans on a Christian forum.

 

[BRB1]

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/matluther.htm

.

M. Luther

… DENIED freewill, reason, philosophy, & mortal sins.
… OK’eD killing of the poor & Jews
…PREFERRED adultery & bigamy, and sinning over doing a good work
… CLAIMED our conscience was only influenced by satan
… BELIEVED he had more wisdom than Augustine
… ACCUSED Christ of being an adulterer with woman at well, Mary Magdeline, etc.

He took great pride in being the chief of sinners … and all Protestants need to make a clean break from this ugly lineage & brutish heretic.

 

[iNs1d3tRiP]

M. Luther

… DENIED freewill, reason, philosophy, & mortal sins.
… OK’eD killing of the poor & Jews
…PREFERRED adultery & bigamy, and sinning over doing a good work
… CLAIMED our conscience was only influenced by satan
… BELIEVED he had more wisdom than Augustine
… ACCUSED Christ of being an adulterer with woman at well, Mary Magdeline, etc.

Thanks those were the main things which I was concerned with because I’ve never Luther being talked about in that way, even in my theology classes at a Catholic institution.

And thanks for the second website, I really appreciate the answer.

 

[SyCarl]

M. Luther

… DENIED freewill, reason, philosophy, & mortal sins.
… OK’eD killing of the poor & Jews
…PREFERRED adultery & bigamy, and sinning over doing a good work
… CLAIMED our conscience was only influenced by satan
… BELIEVED he had more wisdom than Augustine
… ACCUSED Christ of being an adulterer with woman at well, Mary Magdeline, etc.

He took great pride in being the chief of sinners … and all Protestants need to make a clean break from this ugly lineage & brutish heretic.

Where is your source for statements such as these?

 

[NonCatholic]

Yes … the Council of Trent is rockbed Church teaching based on scriptures and oral teachings of Christ and his 12.

Which of its many declarations do you find fault with ?

What I find fault with is irrelevant; I would be more concerned what the Lord has said and will say to those who embrace such things outside of Scripture that are not divine. Many of these teachings were used as excuse to slaughter God’s people…that’s a historical fact.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Many of these teachings were used as excuse to slaughter God’s people…that’s a historical fact.

Are you referring to Lutheran Protestant Germany’s burning 26,000 woman at the stake for being witches?

James

 

[Pax]

Luther’s writings have been heavily criticized and heavily defended. I suggest to people that they research his writings on their own. If you want a website that really digs into the debate you might try Dave Armstrong’s site at:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/luther-lutheranism-index-page.html

Scroll down and start reading the articles and debates. It’s an eye opener.

 

[dawid]

What I find fault with is irrelevant; I would be more concerned what the Lord has said and will say to those who embrace such things outside of Scripture that are not divine. Many of these teachings were used as excuse to slaughter God’s people…that’s a historical fact.

The NT is based on the Church’s sacred Tradition and explains the context of the sacred Scriptures.

You are correct and wise to point out that there are many incorrect teachings that are outside the sacred Scriptures (and Tradition).

 

[neophyte]

…catholicapologetics.info/

If someone could look and see if this website is credible and represents the Catholic church like it claims I would be very appreciative.

That site has much imformation dedicated to “the problems with the New Mass” and “a balanced look at the SSPX”. That throws a big red flag - keep thy salt shaker handy when at that site.

 

[NonCatholic]

Yes … the Council of Trent is rockbed Church teaching based on scriptures and oral teachings of Christ and his 12.

Which of its many declarations do you find fault with ?

I have a problem with transubstantiation at the Lord’s supper, since it is not Biblical as I have pointed out in several other posts. In light of the fact that some associated with the Catholic church used this as a basis to put people to death for denying this.

 

[MDK]

…

If you are seeking the truth, then you will find it in the Bible.

Don’t be misled. The Bible was never intended by itself to teach the inspired and inerrant word recorded in it. If we are seeking the truth, we will find it in the Church built by Christ, the pillar and bulwark of truth. This is the only way of knowing without error the true teachings of God’s Word.

If one misinterprets the Scriptures, do they really know the truth? Evidence is that people do it all the time. People quote the same exact Scripture passage and provide incompatible and irreconcilable meanings to it. Two opposing and irreconcilable views can’t both be right… and it simply gets worse with more people interpreting as they choose.

This was a major problem with Martin Luther’s anti-Scriptural teachings of Bible alone and right of private interpretation. There are other extremely significant doctrinal errors as well, such as OSAS and the consubstantiation as describing the Jesus in the Eucharist. God never taught these things.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have a problem with transubstantiation at the Lord’s supper, since it is not Biblical as I have pointed out in several other posts. In light of the fact that some associated with the Catholic church used this as a basis to put people to death for denying this.

And you have been corrected in several other posts.

There are two issues at stake here:

1. Not everything that the Church teaches must be found in the Bible. The Bible itself does not specify this requirement.
2. Although the doctrine of transubstantiation can be supported from scripture, it has also been defined by an infallible, authoritative Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have a problem with transubstantiation at the Lord’s supper, since it is not Biblical as I have pointed out in several other posts. In light of the fact that some associated with the Catholic church used this as a basis to put people to death for denying this.

Upon reflection, let me ask you this question: Is your disagreement with the doctrine of transubstantiation per se, or are you in complete disagreement with the idea that Jesus is really and truly present in the Lord’s Supper?

 

[MDK]

I have a problem with transubstantiation at the Lord’s supper, since it is not Biblical as I have pointed out in several other posts. In light of the fact that some associated with the Catholic church used this as a basis to put people to death for denying this.

First question would be to know whether you are given the charism of infallibly interpreting God’s Word? If not, then you could be wrong in your interpretations.

When learning from the infallible teaching given by the Church with the protection of the Holy Spirit, transubstantiation is correct. When one has a problem with it, then they have a problem with the truth.

Actually transubstantion was a word coined to describe God’s teaching on this, which is certainly no conflict with His Words as recorded in the Bible. Christ said “this is my body.” Transubstantiation supports this, and conveys this teaching and reality.

Christ did not say something like “my Spiritual Presence is joined to this bread in an intimately close relation.”

To further discuss, consubstantiation also was a word developed by the Catholic Church to describe the the relationship of three Persons in one God… the Trinity.

See, you have a beautiful truth about the Eucharist offered to you today. This is a different modality of presence than spiritual. Will you make the effort to accept and learn more about the truth?