The Wisdom of Personal Attacks on Martin Luther

[Stilldreamn]

My 2 cents:

For people wishing to engage Lutherans evangelistically, you might keep in mind that this activity happens in the here and now, in 2014. You cannot convert the dead of 500 years ago and any thoughtful Lutheran should be aware that Luther’s reforms were a call to action in 1517. The Church he attempted to reform has shaken off the corruption that weighed her down 500 years ago, yet there are still doctrinal differences today.

Those differences are what need to be addressed, and I do understand that after 500 years the differences have only increased. Yet reconciling these differences are what brings the separated brothers and sisters together, not re-fighting a 500 year old war because just as the Catholic church has changed, so have the Lutherans.

There is much education (or re-education) to be done on both sides. I witnessed this first hand with a study hand-out that one of our confirmands left on a table at church yesterday that did not correctly describe Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. I am studying the Catholic Catechism on these points so that I can bring this to the pastor for correction. BTW, it was not a LCMS synod paper, just something that had been written for use in our church and because it had not been reviewed by anyone outside of the congregation, error has persisted.

It is because of the postings of many thoughtful members here on CAF that I have gained the knowledge of where I find agreement and where I am still at odds. I appreciate the opportunity to learn about Catholicism from actual Catholics and I hope you take advantage of learning about Lutheranism from living Lutherans.

 

[GuyNextDoor]

My 2 cents:

For people wishing to engage Lutherans evangelistically, you might keep in mind that this activity happens in the here and now, in 2014. You cannot convert the dead of 500 years ago and any thoughtful Lutheran should be aware that Luther’s reforms were a call to action in 1517. The Church he attempted to reform has shaken off the corruption that weighed her down 500 years ago, yet there are still doctrinal differences today.

Those differences are what need to be addressed, and I do understand that after 500 years the differences have only increased. Yet reconciling these differences are what brings the separated brothers and sisters together, not re-fighting a 500 year old war because just as the Catholic church has changed, so have the Lutherans.

There is much education (or re-education) to be done on both sides. I witnessed this first hand with a study hand-out that one of our confirmands left on a table at church yesterday that did not correctly describe Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. I am studying the Catholic Catechism on these points so that I can bring this to the pastor for correction. BTW, it was not a LCMS synod paper, just something that had been written for use in our church and because it had not been reviewed by anyone outside of the congregation, error has persisted.

It is because of the postings of many thoughtful members here on CAF that I have gained the knowledge of where I find agreement and where I am still at odds. I appreciate the opportunity to learn about Catholicism from actual Catholics and I hope you take advantage of learning about Lutheranism from living Lutherans.

One thing that I am certain of here is, your post is worth more than 2 cents. Re-education is a great need between both sides, instead of the constant reminders of the misdeeds from both sides, to which I myself am guilty of every time a Christian came up to me disdainfully when they see me wearing a crucifix or a rosary ring, that I ended up retaliating back like I have a list of old scores to settle with them. It just gets so old and breeds nothing but resentment.

So yes I have nothing to disagree here; Forgiveness, re-education & reconciliation. People need to stop listening to the gossip-mongers within the communities, be it the Protestant Church or the Holy Catholic Church as if their salvation is dependent on slanders & gossips.

God alone will be our judge.

 

[rcwitness]

Well…Bashing would include saying things that are true that have no bearing on the issue at hand. I would suggest few would be willing to have all their sins posted on CAF on a thread, for example, for examination, before we decide whether the poster is worthy or consideration or just freaking crazy (me in the latter camp).

There are many different aspects of this issue. I agree that accusing someone of their sins can only be done in good faith when it is in an attempt to bring them to turn from them, OR others to turn from their example. It shouldn’t be done to discredit something which they are doing out of good faith.

The only thing I have raised in discussion about Martin was the fact that he did approve of an invalid Marriage and then advised the person to tell a good strong lie to keep it hidden. This was to show that He too abused his office of Priest. This is the thing that many within the Church heirarchy were doing which was a participation in the cause of the division in the Church. It was obvious that those who espoused the same basis of theology as Martin did not all commune with him. In Martin’s own lifetime there were somewhere around 40 splits of denominations after him. I certainly wouldn’t use the fact that Martin abused his office as a proof that his teachings were wrong. I just see it as hypocratical, especially when he himself expressed he was greater than any bishop in the previous 1000 yrs.

Luther, perhaps, was the first to be allowed to survive to express himself due to changes in the political circumstances. Hus was burned earlier, along with many others. But Luther did not develop his theories in a vacuum, whether religiously or politically. According to McGrath anyway he was solidly in the via moderna prior to his breakthroughs. But neither did he develop those breakthroughs alone, and primitive Lutheranism involved a number of other people. It was not Martin alone. Some in his monastery went with him, some remained Catholic, but from what I gather, there was a lot of arguing and hammering out of positions on things. Was he a sole agent of change? Not in my apprehension of the situation. The insanity argument requires that those around him were also nuts, which was unlikely (even if he was cuckoo, which I doubt, and is outside the scope of this thread).

I think there was alot of respect for Luther within the Church, because he was right about the need for reform and house cleaning. Many in the Church desired to work with him and reconcile the abuses going on.

It is folly to blame Luther alone for the political and religious situation he found himself in.

Luther alone…I like it…never mind…

There’s no doubt about that! Yet, he is responsible for a large participation in a reformation which did not conform to the Universal Church. This means that he was either a prophetic witness chosen by God to accomplish what he is responsible for, or he wanted to change things that were ugly in the Church, yet took it into his own hands and his own interpretations.

I personally believe the latter. I don’t think that a band of preachers who separate from the Church leadership and then separate from each other is very convincing of a righteous result. The reform did occur and Trent was the doctrinal fruit of that change. And ever since then, we have seen much better behavior. Now recently we have seen the sex scandals, but that is quite a different issue. Yet, it’s an abuse which did occur, and reform from that is necessary.

 

[rcwitness]

Also, I do hear alot of Martins beliefs brought up by Catholics which were in communion with the Catholic faith. This is done to show how those who consider him to be a hero in their own faith don’t realize how much they would disagree with him.

Examples would be the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and The True Presence of the Eucharist and a strong opposition to mere symbolic bread and wine.

Maybe we should start a thread about the good faith we find in Martin Luther?

 

[Peter_J]

I am really puzzled by the seeming obsession some Catholics display in attacking Martin Luther, as if somehow it will undo the Reformation: He was insane, he was the devil’s spawn, he was this, that, manic depressive, whatever. Somehow people seem to think they are going to get somewhere with all that. As I am more in the Reformed camp, Luther really was incidental. I shrug my shoulders.

This thread is not about his person or even about Luther at all. This thread is about why some Catholics seem to think that they will get somewhere by destroying him. I wish to make several points as to why I think this tactic is a bad idea.

One, Lutherans REPEATEDLY have stated that they do not elevate his teachings to the level of doctine. Lutheranism is not Luther and he is not their pope or prophet. What is called Lutheranism has been digested and percolated over the last 500 years and is not contingent on anything in Martin Luther’s person or even thoughts. I would venture to say the man might very well disagree with a lot of what passes for Lutheranism. Lutherans say this was a fine example of God using a sinner for His purposes. Paul was a murderer, Peter betrayed Christ, Luther may have been nuts. I really don’t care about his psychological profile. Really!

Secondly, I wonder at the idea that if they show that Martin Luther is so bad, they will then become Catholic. This is certainly a negative tactic that suggests that those pursuing this agenda really have no better arguments for Catholicism than that Luther was bad, so therefore Lutherans should become Catholic. I find this extremely unconvincing. Isn’t there anything good in Catholicism? Did these Luther-bashers really become Catholic because they took a dislike to Luther? That is like preferring God to Satan because you don’t like Satan - never mind what God is like. Faint praise, there.

Thirdly, Catholics embrace the argument that it does not matter what Church leaders have done, it is the teaching of the Catholic Church that is important. But then they turn around and say that it is not what Luther taught that is important, but what a crazy little blockhead he was, as if his teaching does not matter. It seems logically contradictory.

Fourthly, I suspect these Luther-bashers have not taken the time to study what Luther believed, or what Lutheranism developed into, because all they seem able to do is to attack Luther. It gets boring. BORING. BORING. Reading post after post of unremitting negative information about someone gets boring. These are the kinds of people you move away from at parties and are not the sorts of people I enjoy interacting with. People who are negative all the time are no fun. Luther had his good points and these sorts of patterns of posts suggest personal problems or distortions in themselves that make me question them from the get-go. Luther DID have his good points. It is off-putting, to say the least.

That is my 2 cents.

Before we go further I’d like to throw this question out (or in): is Luther-bashing more common among Roman Catholics than it is among e.g. Baptists?

 

[Peter_J]

Have you ever visited any Lutheran forums?
Believe me, you will find many anti-catholic postings there. I am just saying these are discussion forums and this one is called Catholic Answers so yes there will be bias just as when you go to a protestant website. That is the nature of the forums I guess. So we discuss theology, doctrines, sacraments, etc. and there are differences.

Well said.

For that matter, posters on this forum might have slightly different opinions of Catholic non-CA forums than those forums have of themselves.

 

[spina1953]

There is much in the way of myths about Luther. Some only want to discuss a Luther they feel did much to reform the Church of doctrines and teachings. yet, do not want to discuss the Luther who used the printing press a means to foster propaganda against everyone who opposed him, his doctrines, and his teaching. It not just against the CC but Anabaptists, of Calvin, Zwingli and others.

I do not know what sins Luther had or didn't have, and am not interested in that. I am interested in exploring the reasons for the Reformation that its causes, and the part Luther played in it. Luther's writings show a far different person than the hero that so many think he is. I also think that there are many factors that led Luther to bring about the Reformation with his teachings, doctrines and theology. While it is true that modern Lutheran's may not accept all of Luther's teachings doctrines and theology, it really is not about them but about how Luther used his writings to bash everyone else that opposed him.

 I rather doubt that anyone is trying to reconvert those of 500 years past who left the CC. What was done is done and can't be changed as it is now history. Luther did fuel much hatred against the CC by his writings, but also against others who went in a different direction in religious beliefs. I also agree that many people in our day and age do not really know Luther or the times in which he lived, and have only what they have read or heard but not really knowing if it is true or not, they just accept it as so. If in exploring Luther shows him in a bad light I do not think it an attack on him but a getting a understanding of the man and what he wrote and what he believed. Luther is considered the father of the reformation and while he gets the credit for it he also must take the blame for what happened.

 

[manualman]

I humbly suggest that the OP does not wish to engage in discussions about Luther precisely because some rather uncomfortable truths come to light when one actually does.

Even a protestant descended from Calvin ought to recognize the fact that Luther opened the can of worms that made it possible for Calvin to be taken seriously. It’s not like people hadn’t come up in history before with radically new ideas. It’s just that in centuries prior, those ideas had trouble taking any real root in society at large if they didn’t pass the scrutiny of the Church. By asserting that the Church (defined in the catholic manner) HAS no real authority, Luther opened the door not only to Calvin, but to everybody who came after from Wesley to Smith (LDS) to L Ron Hubbard.

Protestants can rightly point to people earlier than Luther (Hus) for example that held ideas recognizable to protestants. But those people were otherwise irrelevant in a world in which people understood the Church to hold the divinely appointed mission of safeguarding the gospel against harmful innovations and distortions. Luther broke that worldview in Christianity and it has been chaos ever since.

For that reason alone, it is worthwhile to study Luther and ponder his motivations, his strengths, his good points and his weaknesses. I do notice that the OP never mentioned my pet theory. At risk of boring him, I’d assert that Luther suffered from scrupulosity before developing his Sola Fide doctrine to alleviate it. This is not a disparagement of Luther, it’s an attempt to identify a charitable explanation for why he thought the way he did and why he fought so hard against attempts at correcting him.

 

[rcwitness]

The only thing I have raised in discussion about Martin was the fact that he did approve of an invalid Marriage and then advised the person to tell a good strong lie to keep it hidden.

Ok, I have criticized his intentions by being motivated to get married. :imsorry: sorry

I might be back, as I try to remember my sins…

 

[spina1953]

I humbly suggest that the OP does not wish to engage in discussions about Luther precisely because some rather uncomfortable truths come to light when one actually does.

Even a protestant descended from Calvin ought to recognize the fact that Luther opened the can of worms that made it possible for Calvin to be taken seriously. It’s not like people hadn’t come up in history before with radically new ideas. It’s just that in centuries prior, those ideas had trouble taking any real root in society at large if they didn’t pass the scrutiny of the Church. By asserting that the Church (defined in the catholic manner) HAS no real authority, Luther opened the door not only to Calvin, but to everybody who came after from Wesley to Smith (LDS) to L Ron Hubbard.

Protestants can rightly point to people earlier than Luther (Hus) for example that held ideas recognizable to protestants. But those people were otherwise irrelevant in a world in which people understood the Church to hold the divinely appointed mission of safeguarding the gospel against harmful innovations and distortions. Luther broke that worldview in Christianity and it has been chaos ever since.

For that reason alone, it is worthwhile to study Luther and ponder his motivations, his strengths, his good points and his weaknesses. I do notice that the OP never mentioned my pet theory. At risk of boring him, I’d assert that Luther suffered from scrupulosity before developing his Sola Fide doctrine to alleviate it. This is not a disparagement of Luther, it’s an attempt to identify a charitable explanation for why he thought the way he did and why he fought so hard against attempts at correcting him.

Hi munalman: I agree. yes, Luther opened the door with a can of worms that in affect allowed others to be taken seriously who otherwise would not have been. Luther used many of Huss’s ideas in his debates in defending his own.

                   Luther did suffer severe scrupulosity and I think it is one of the root causes that led him to develop his Sola Fide doctrine. His upbringing was harsh and severe which I think also led him to have a hot temper and a big ego and stubbornness which he is rather known for. Luther was the type of person who could not take any criticism from anyone nor thought that he could ever be wrong or incorrect in his thinking, teachings, doctrines and theology. To Luther anyone who disagreed with him was wrong, plain and simple. he used slander and violent language against his opponents  that could be very crude. Luther's scrupulosity is not a disparaging since it is a symptom of his disease, which caused him to develop his doctrine of Sola Fide to alleviate it, which also led to other doctrines, teachings and theology. I also think that his upbringing is important as it also influenced his behavior, the stubbornness, big ego and hot temper, since this caused him not to accept any criticism from anyone. The more one learns the more one can either accept or not accept who Luther was and is.

.

 

[KathleenGee]

To completely wipe out Christianitiy and its history to replace it with his own version is a possible result of Spina’s analysis of Luther.

Luther did suffer from severe scrupulosity, never experiencing the love of Christ within the Church, in spite of 1500 years of Catholics experiencing Him. The canonized saints are testimony to Christ’s great presence within the Church irregardless of the weakness and failures of its clerics.

In spite of them, the Lord still comes through to His people.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I humbly suggest that the OP does not wish to engage in discussions about Luther precisely because some rather uncomfortable truths come to light when one actually does.

Like every other non-deified human being that has ever existed.

Protestants can rightly point to people earlier than Luther (Hus) for example that held ideas recognizable to protestants. But those people were otherwise irrelevant in a world in which people understood the Church to hold the divinely appointed mission of safeguarding the gospel against harmful innovations and distortions. Luther broke that worldview in Christianity and it has been chaos ever since.

Hus was relevant enough for the church to call a council and murder him.

I’d assert that Luther suffered from scrupulosity before developing his Sola Fide doctrine to alleviate it. This is not a disparagement of Luther, it’s an attempt to identify a charitable explanation for why he thought the way he did and why he fought so hard against attempts at correcting him.

So it’s your assertion that our (Lutheran) views of sola fide are restricted to being founded on Luther’s scrupulosity and nothing whatsoever to do with, say, Romans, Galatians or Ephesians (as an example)?

 

[rcwitness]

Luther broke that worldview in Christianity and it has been chaos ever since.

To completely wipe out Christianitiy and its history to replace it with his own version is a possible result of Spina’s analysis of Luther.

“Chaos”… “wipe out Christianity”?

Hardly the way I view Protestantism.

 

[spina1953]

To completely wipe out Christianitiy and its history to replace it with his own version is a possible result of Spina’s analysis of Luther.

Luther did suffer from severe scrupulosity, never experiencing the love of Christ within the Church, in spite of 1500 years of Catholics experiencing Him. The canonized saints are testimony to Christ’s great presence within the Church irregardless of the weakness and failures of its clerics.

In spite of them, the Lord still comes through to His people.

Hi Kathleen Gee: There were abuses by the Bishops and priests. many did not live in the area or parishes that they were to reside in, many also had mistresses ands lived a lavished lifestyle at the expense of the common people. In Germany for example the preaching of indulgences were by many abused and sold pocketing the monies for themselves. Peasants were being overly taxed by the princes of the regions they controlled. The time was ripe for someone like Luther to come along and promote a new theology and teaching and doctrine. It was not CC teachings that was incorrect or wrong but the bishops and priests who were abusing their power by the lifestyle they were living.

Luther’s revolt did in fact change the Western face of Christianity in that it promoted radical new theologies and teachings that in the end Luther could not prevent. others like Calvin and Zwingli came up with their own novel doctrines which were very much different than from what Luther’s was. The CC was slow to combat it, while Luther took advantage of it by publishing more pamphlets than anyone else in the German language with a great deal of propaganda to influence the peasants into accepting what he was teaching. But is also caused others to form their own ideas as to what Scripture was meant and what it said. The notion that everyman could interpret Scripture as he say fit was a authority issue as the CC taught that it had the authority to interpret Scripture based on what the Apostles taught and was not willing to give that up as then it would rightfully lead to chaos, which in our own day and age we can readily see from all the different ways Scripture is interpreted by all the different Protestant sects.

 

[steido01]

I humbly suggest that the OP does not wish to engage in discussions about Luther precisely because some rather uncomfortable truths come to light when one actually does.

I’ll less-humbly state that you’re flat-out wrong. The Op clearly explained why they don’t approve of Luther bashing… why shouldn’t we take them at their word? And why would they care whether “uncomfortable truths” came to light about Luther? They aren’t Lutheran, and even if they were, Lutherans themselves don’t shy away from Luther’s warts - we love those shortcomings. They prove he’s a sinner in need of a Savior - just like you, me, the Pope and everyone else.

Even a protestant descended from Calvin ought to recognize the fact that Luther opened the can of worms…

Blah, blah, blah, slippery slope baloney. Who opened Luther’s can, then? Surely ‘even a Catholic descended from Trent’ can see where that sort of argument eventually places all the blame? I’d prefer to take the approach of the Catholic Catechism:

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.”

it is worthwhile to study Luther and ponder his motivations, his strengths, his good points and his weaknesses.

Yes! And the Op is interested in doing precisely this by looking at facts (which requires research and context!) rather than “pet theories,” amateur psychology, intentional misrepresentation or exaggeration of doctrine, cherry-picked misquotes or ad hominem attacks. I can’t think of many times when quarreling with the dead has done anyone any good. Then again, my denomination doesn’t have a history of Cadaver Synods. But do you get my point? If we were to dig into our closets, neither would be absent of skeletons. So why not do what Indiana Jones does: seek facts, not lowercase truth.

 

[pablope]

I’ll

Blah, blah, blah, slippery slope baloney. Who opened Luther’s can, then? Surely ‘even a Catholic descended from Trent’ can see where that sort of argument eventually places all the blame? I’d prefer to take the approach of the Catholic Catechism:

Blah, blah, blah, slippery slope baloney. Who opened Luther’s can, then? Surely ‘even a Catholic descended from Trent’ can see where that sort of argument eventually places all the blame? I’d prefer to take the approach of the Catholic Catechism:
Quote:
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.”
Quote:

.

Has anyone, within Lutheranism, with the authority to say so…actually acknowledged the faults of Lutherans in the Reformation also?

for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."

From what I have seen, Lutherans always cite this portion of the Catechism, but do not actually post something in their own words, acknowledging the same.

 

[steido01]

I am really puzzled by the seeming obsession some Catholics display in attacking Martin Luther, as if somehow it will undo the Reformation…

Amen, amen, a thousand times amen! :sad_yes:

 

[rcwitness]

Maybe this is why St Paul instructed Timothy to appoint Bishops whom were above reproach?

1 Timothy 3:1-

Qualifications of Bishops

3 The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop,[a] he desires a noble task. 2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, 3 no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; 5 for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil;** 7 moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, or he may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.[c]**

 

[steido01]

Has anyone, within Lutheranism, with the authority to say so…actually acknowledged the faults of Lutherans in the Reformation also?

Sure. Every Lutheran pastor ever. It’s the core of our teaching. We are sinners. We sin against God and our fellow Christians. We need a savior.

From what I have seen, Lutherans always cite this portion of the Catechism, but do not actually post something in their own words, acknowledging the same.

I have and I know other Lutherans here and elsewhere have, too. But just so there’s no question, I’ll leave this example: Luther’s bombastic use of polemic, which was common to his day, contributed greatly to the deepening chasm between Wittenberg and Rome. He could, and should, have followed his own advice regarding the eighth commandment, that “We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.”

 

[pablope]

Sure. Every Lutheran pastor ever. It’s the core of our teaching. We are sinners. We sin against God and our fellow Christians. We need a savior.

I have and I know other Lutherans here and elsewhere have, too. But just so there’s no question, I’ll leave this example: Luther’s bombastic use of polemic, which was common to his day, contributed greatly to the deepening chasm between Wittenberg and Rome. He could, and should, have followed his own advice regarding the eighth commandment, that “We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.”

Thanks, Don…but I was looking more, something from an official capacity…for example, something from the LCMS hierarchy, or the ILF or LWF, that you guys can post and cite.