The Wisdom of Personal Attacks on Martin Luther

[benjohnson]

What I was asking was a statement acknowleding the fault of Luther/Lutherans/Reformers for the cause of the split.
.

Perhaps this? From “Conflict to Communion:”

1. On this occasion, Lutherans will also remember the vicious and de- grading statements that Martin Luther made against the Jews. They are ashamed of them and deeply deplore them. Lutherans have come to recognize with a deep sense of regret the persecution of Anabaptists by Lutheran authorities and the fact that Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon theologically supported this persecution. They deplore Luther’s violent attacks against the peasants during the Peasants’ War. The awareness of the dark sides of Luther and the Reformation has prompted a critical and self-critical attitude of Lutheran theologians to- wards Luther and the Wittenberg Reformation. Even though they agree in part with Luther’s criticism of the papacy, nevertheless Lutherans today reject Luther’s identification of the pope with the Antichrist.

 

[spina1953]

I am currently reading a book about Luther and agree with what you have shared. I was Lutheran for over 30 years and never knew much about him. Knowing history and the history of a person and why they believe the way they do helps understanding and can better explain and develop unity rather than division. “Bashing” anyone as a rule has never been really the best way to come to any agreement. I just haven’t really seen a lot of this “bashing” Luther myself being Lutheran or now that I’m Catholic. I have experienced some Catholic “bashing” since converting- unfortunately. I pray for those who do the bashing.
Blessings in Him,
mlz

Hi Miz: Learning about the real Luther of history and the reasons for the reformation is not always a very pretty read. I do not go with Luther bashing or the bashing of anyone just because they are not Catholic or accept Catholic Church teaching. I do know that there are Catholic’s out there who would bash Luther and anyone else for that matter, but then again there are those who bash Catholic’s in return. What people believe in our day and age may not be the same as what people in Luther’s time believed. Yet, if one is to know Luther and his writings, teachings, and doctrines one does have to know who Luther was and why he did what he did. Otherwise, we are just going down the wrong path. I do not think Luther was some evil person, he had his faults just we all do, but the thing here is he did manage to change the face of Western Christianity into what we see to day.

 

[JonNC]

Jon…when you say “required”…are you saying then that good works are merely a robotic response to grace? In that one is “required” or are a must?

Then good works are not a foundation of an interior renewal or results from an interior change in oneself?

Required, out of the new obedience. So, actually, they do reflect a growth in grace. Actual love for our neighbors, ISTM, can’t be “robotic”.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=manualman;12338834]No, and I should have clarified that I don’t think Luther suffered from the particular defect. (It’s the opposite defect as scrupulosity, actually!) It’s just my opinion that much of his work tends to enable the Cheap Grace philosophy. It’s a good point that you make that it appears to be a flaw of emphasis in his teachings, not the character of his heart.

I think one will find that it is more how it is poorly taught, than the actual teaching itself.
The other side of that is, I think the Catholic “danger” is in believing one can secure one’s salvation through works.
Neither is the case in the actual teachings, but in the misunderstanding.

We moderns like to be preached to in areas where we are not weak (Witness how much the happily married man desires fire and brimstone preaching on homosexuality, fornication and divorce). Give Luther his due, he tended to preach to his own weaknesses. That takes guts and commitment, virtues he had in spades.

An interesting POV. Thanks.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

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.

Hi Tomy,

First of all, I agree that people here should not ‘bash’ others, living or dead. However, it seems to me that this ‘bashing’ is very much in the eye of the beholder. What some might describe as ‘bashing Luther’, others might see as ‘revealing the truth’ about the man, and as correcting the widely held popular misconceptions about him.

The Martin Luther that I learned about in my Protestant Sunday School is very different that the Luther of actual fact. The popular ‘Legend’ of Luther does not include things like his ‘attitude’ towards the Jews, the Anababtists, the peasants, and in fact - Catholics. Nor does it include his sanctioning of a bigamous marriage and then recommending that everyone lie about it. Those things and many others have been, over the years, tremendously ‘underreported’ by Protestantism and specifically by Lutheranism.

In the last few generations, Academic Protestantism has become much more forthcoming regarding the Truth About Luther, but this trend does not seem to have impacted Protestant lay apologetics, which seems much less willing to delve into the ‘details’ of Luther’s more embarrassing teachings and actions (as evidenced here on CA).

Protestantism and especially Protestant Lutheranism begins with the presumption that Luther was right to challenge the Church doctrinally, but is extremely reluctant to discuss specifically and exactly why.

Luther’s teachings on the Jews, Anabaptists, peasants, ‘reluctant wives’, etc, etc, go directly to the issue of his ‘authority’ to teach (differently than the Church). After all, if we all concluded that he misinterpreted Scripture on all of those issues, then we would have to consider the possibility that he might have also misinterpreted Scripture on Salvation (by Faith Alone) and Sola Scriptura, neither of which had ever been ‘noticed’ in Scripture before.

Personally, I believe that Protestants deserved to know the whole truth about Martin Luther. I believe that they deserve to be exposed to the both the positive and negative elements of Luther as a man and as a Theologian. The subject certainly seems to be interesting to people here on Catholic Answers. The recently closed thread “Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated”, averaged almost 1,000 views and 25 posts per day. This thread is now about 30 hours old and it has over 1,200 views and more than 60 posts. It is extremely clear that the people on CA are interested in Martin Luther.

I post a lot of information about Martin Luther, including a lot of quotes from various Scholars. The vast majority of the Scholars that I quote are Protestant, with the Lutherans among them being vastly over-represented. Many of them make comments that are critical of, or reveal embarrassing facts about Luther, then are those Protestant Scholars ‘bashing Luther’? Is revealing the actual truth about someone ‘bashing’ them?

The fact of the matter is that Martin Luther has had a phenomenal amount of influence on Western Christendom. The fact that he refuted/challenged so many established doctrines with nothing more than his own self-proclaimed authority to do so virtually demands that we delve into the man himself and ALL of his teachings.

The fact of the matter is that Luther revolted against the Catholic Church. Many Protestants think that the Church was wrong to excommunicate him, but then those people are generally ignorant of the facts. When the facts about the reasons for Luther’s excommunication are revealed (as they have been), people understand that the Church was given no choice but to excommunicate him and in fact in that formal excommunication, were only acknowledging what Luther had made very clearly and publically known, that he was no longer Catholic in belief.

Those who prefer to have the Church be viewed as being wrong to oppose Luther, would also, in effect, appear to prefer to have the actions of the Church against Luther be misunderstood. In other words, to be overly “kind” to Luther (vs. the actual facts), preferring that the truth about the man not come out, is to support a position which would in effect, be overly harsh in regards to the actions of the Church against him.

In order to understand whether the Church ‘wronged’ Martin Luther, it is important to know the facts of their conflict. Revealing those facts is not ‘bashing’.

God Bless You Tomy, Topper

 

[Peter_J]

Jon…when you say “required”…are you saying then that good works are merely a robotic response to grace? In that one is “required” or are a must?

Then good works are not a foundation of an interior renewal or results from an interior change in oneself?

I’m not sure I get your question (I haven’t read every single one of your posts on this thread, so that might have something to do with it) but FWIW the statement you’re responding to – that binding means that a belief is required – is true in C-ism as well.

 

[Tomyris]

I think there is a concern for preserving the dignity and reputation of persons at work in the Catholic faith that provides an illustration of a danger and temptation to Catholics when attempting to describe Luther. There is a native animus to him that makes hatred difficult to avoid, so much so, that I think that some would be shocked to discover what they have said about him, if they tried to say it about any other person. Yet abuse freely seems to fall on him in a way they would not dare give another. This would be another reason to add to my original list in the OP - Catholics put themselves in grave danger when attempting to assess and then, perhaps unwittingly, judge him.

It would be far better, methinks, to show how Catholicism is a better, truer, happier faith, than to spend your energies pursuing proof of madness. In that path you are likely to run into your own madness, to fall into the pit you have expected to find Luther in. There is much good in Catholicism and to focus on what is wrong in the life of another is singularly unhealthy.

Identify where Luther was wrong, if you will. Show how his belief was error. But these personal attacks are unbecoming. We already know he was a sinner, but in all honesty I don’t know that he was any worse than I am, or that I would have done better in the same circumstances. I cannot throw stones at him.

 

[Peter_J]

There is a native animus to him that makes hatred difficult to avoid,

There has been, definitely, but times change. I tend to think that we have become fairer towards him.

It’s worth remembering that, not many generations ago, Catholics also heaped a great deal of scorn on an Orthodox saint, Patriach Photios of Constantinople. (Edit: Granted it may take a little bit longer vis-a-vis Martin Luther.)

 

[Topper17]

Something like this? The bold part is rather telling IMHO.
In 1983, the Synod adopted an official resolution addressing these statements of Luther and making clear its own position on anti-Semitism. The text of this resolution reads as follows:
Resolved, That while, on the one hand, we are deeply indebted to Luther for his rediscovery and enunciation of the Gospel, on the other hand, we deplore and disassociate ourselves from Luther’s negative statements about the Jewish people, and, by the same token, we deplore the use today of such sentiments by Luther to incite anti-Christian and/or anti-Lutheran sentiment; and be it further

Resolved, That, in that light, we personally and individually adopt Luther’s final attitude toward the Jewish people, as evidenced in his last sermon: “We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord” (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195).

Hi Ben,

It appears to me that this official statement of the LCMS, is, at best, grossly misinformed. By suggesting that ‘we personally and individually adopt Luther’s final attitude towards the Jewish people’, the LCMS is implying that Luther’s position against the Jews ‘softened’ at the end of his life. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Luther carried his bitterness and hatred for the Jews until his very last days on earth. “….the intense antagonism Luther bore the Jews continued to the end of his life and even found violent expression in his last public sermon.” Lutheran Mark U. Edwards, Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 134

In fact, he died “a few days after calling for the burning of the homes of Jews and their expulsion from Germany.” Catholic Warren J. Carroll, “The Cleaving of Christendom”, pg. 189

“In two of Luther’s last remaining letters to his wife Katharina, the matter of the Jews is at the forefront of the issues he wants to share with her.” Lutherans Schramm and Stjerna, “Martin Luther, the Bible, and the Jewish People”, pg. 97

On February 1st, 1546, Luther wrote:

“After the main issues have been settled, I have to start expelling the Jews. Count Albrecht is hostile to them and has already outlawed them. But no one harms them as yet. If God grants it I shall aid Count Albrecht from the pulpit, and outlaw them too.” LW, Vol. 50, pg. 291

Luther was upset that nobody had as yet been harming the Jews, and considered it his duty, personally, to “start expelling the Jews”. Six days later and only 11 days before his death, Luther writes his last letter to his wife:

“There are also Jews here, about fifty in one house, as I have written to you previously. Now it is said that in Rissdorf—close to Eisleben, where I became ill during my journey—there are supposedly about four hundred Jews living and working. Count Albrecht, who owns all the area around Eisleben, has declared that the Jews who are caught on his property are outlaws. But as yet no one wants to do them any harm. The Countess of Mansfeld, the widow of Solms, is considered to be the protector of the Jews. I do not know whether this is true. Today I made my opinion known in a sufficiently blunt way if anyone wishes to pay attention to it. Otherwise it might not do any good at all. You people pray, pray, pray, and help us that we do all things properly, for today in my anger I had made up my mind to grease the carriage.” LW, Vol. 50, pg. 302-303

Luther died on February 16th, 1543, “a few days after calling for the burning of the homes of the Jews and their expulsion from Germany.” Carroll, pg. 189

Just a few days before he died Luther wrote an addendum to one of his last sermons, probably his second to last – February 7th. This addendum, “An Admonition Against the Jews”: “forcefully advocates the expulsion of the Jews so as to avoid being implicated in – and thus contaminated by – Jewish blasphemy, stands as Luther’s final work on the Jewish question.” Schramm, pg. 200

“During his last sermon in Eisleben, February 15, 1546, (three days before his death) he was too weak to finish preaching, but managed to read the text of an ‘Exhortation Against the Jews’. In it, he repeated his call for their conversion, but called them ‘public enemies,’ ‘poisoners,’ and ‘bloodsuckers’.” Lutheran Eric Gritsch, “Martin Luther’s Anti-Semitism”, pg. 96

“He died on February 18, 1546, a bitter – and proud – enemy of the Jews.” Schramm, pg. 200

Right to the bitter end Luther publically displayed his hatred towards the Jews.

Ben, this official statement of the LCMS is now 31 years old. By stating that ‘we personally and individually adopt Luther’s final attitude toward the Jewish people’, the LCMS is directly implying that Luther’s position became ‘acceptable’ towards the end of his life. That is extremely misleading. Do you think that in these 31 years this has not been pointed out to the LCMS? It would seem to me that they need to retract that statement and at least ‘reword’ it somehow.

One last thing – for the record, it was you who brought up that LCMS statement about Luther’s ‘attitude’ towards the Jews, not me. You were attempting I think to point out how your Lutheran communion is willing to condemn the clearly objectionable writings of Luther. But that is not exactly what the facts point out.

If it were not for these kinds of very common ‘misrepresentations’, it might not be so necessary to provide the ‘alternative point of view’. Personally, I think someone ought to inform the LCMS that their official statement does not match up very well with the historical facts.

God Bless You Ben, Topper

PS, Also for the record, this is obviously NOT “bashing” Luther. It is setting the record straight with the facts.

 

[robwar]

Hi Tomy,

First of all, I agree that people here should not ‘bash’ others, living or dead. However, it seems to me that this ‘bashing’ is very much in the eye of the beholder. What some might describe as ‘bashing Luther’, others might see as ‘revealing the truth’ about the man, and as correcting the widely held popular misconceptions about him.

The Martin Luther that I learned about in my Protestant Sunday School is very different that the Luther of actual fact. The popular ‘Legend’ of Luther does not include things like his ‘attitude’ towards the Jews, the Anababtists, the peasants, and in fact - Catholics. Nor does it include his sanctioning of a bigamous marriage and then recommending that everyone lie about it. Those things and many others have been, over the years, tremendously ‘underreported’ by Protestantism and specifically by Lutheranism.

In the last few generations, Academic Protestantism has become much more forthcoming regarding the Truth About Luther, but this trend does not seem to have impacted Protestant lay apologetics, which seems much less willing to delve into the ‘details’ of Luther’s more embarrassing teachings and actions (as evidenced here on CA).

Protestantism and especially Protestant Lutheranism begins with the presumption that Luther was right to challenge the Church doctrinally, but is extremely reluctant to discuss specifically and exactly why.

Luther’s teachings on the Jews, Anabaptists, peasants, ‘reluctant wives’, etc, etc, go directly to the issue of his ‘authority’ to teach (differently than the Church). After all, if we all concluded that he misinterpreted Scripture on all of those issues, then we would have to consider the possibility that he might have also misinterpreted Scripture on Salvation (by Faith Alone) and Sola Scriptura, neither of which had ever been ‘noticed’ in Scripture before.

Personally, I believe that Protestants deserved to know the whole truth about Martin Luther. I believe that they deserve to be exposed to the both the positive and negative elements of Luther as a man and as a Theologian. The subject certainly seems to be interesting to people here on Catholic Answers. The recently closed thread “Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated”, averaged almost 1,000 views and 25 posts per day. This thread is now about 30 hours old and it has over 1,200 views and more than 60 posts. It is extremely clear that the people on CA are interested in Martin Luther.

I post a lot of information about Martin Luther, including a lot of quotes from various Scholars. The vast majority of the Scholars that I quote are Protestant, with the Lutherans among them being vastly over-represented. Many of them make comments that are critical of, or reveal embarrassing facts about Luther, then are those Protestant Scholars ‘bashing Luther’? Is revealing the actual truth about someone ‘bashing’ them?

The fact of the matter is that Martin Luther has had a phenomenal amount of influence on Western Christendom. The fact that he refuted/challenged so many established doctrines with nothing more than his own self-proclaimed authority to do so virtually demands that we delve into the man himself and ALL of his teachings.

The fact of the matter is that Luther revolted against the Catholic Church. Many Protestants think that the Church was wrong to excommunicate him, but then those people are generally ignorant of the facts. When the facts about the reasons for Luther’s excommunication are revealed (as they have been), people understand that the Church was given no choice but to excommunicate him and in fact in that formal excommunication, were only acknowledging what Luther had made very clearly and publically known, that he was no longer Catholic in belief.

Those who prefer to have the Church be viewed as being wrong to oppose Luther, would also, in effect, appear to prefer to have the actions of the Church against Luther be misunderstood. In other words, to be overly “kind” to Luther (vs. the actual facts), preferring that the truth about the man not come out, is to support a position which would in effect, be overly harsh in regards to the actions of the Church against him.

In order to understand whether the Church ‘wronged’ Martin Luther, it is important to know the facts of their conflict. Revealing those facts is not ‘bashing’.

God Bless You Tomy, Topper

your post made my day!

 

[Peter_J]

Luther was a “sinner”?
How do people say he was a sinner?

With my keyboard. (Granted that doesn’t fit your question if you mean literally saying it. )

 

[SuperLuigi]

Personal attacks accomplish nothing.

I would be embarrassed if any Catholic personally attacked Luther.

 

[robwar]

I think there is a concern for preserving the dignity and reputation of persons at work in the Catholic faith that provides an illustration of a danger and temptation to Catholics when attempting to describe Luther. There is a native animus to him that makes hatred difficult to avoid, so much so, that I think that some would be shocked to discover what they have said about him, if they tried to say it about any other person. Yet abuse freely seems to fall on him in a way they would not dare give another. This would be another reason to add to my original list in the OP - Catholics put themselves in grave danger when attempting to assess and then, perhaps unwittingly, judge him.

It would be far better, methinks, to show how Catholicism is a better, truer, happier faith, than to spend your energies pursuing proof of madness. In that path you are likely to run into your own madness, to fall into the pit you have expected to find Luther in. There is much good in Catholicism and to focus on what is wrong in the life of another is singularly unhealthy.

Identify where Luther was wrong, if you will. Show how his belief was error. But these personal attacks are unbecoming. We already know he was a sinner, but in all honesty I don’t know that he was any worse than I am, or that I would have done better in the same circumstances. I cannot throw stones at him.

I am not sure what “personal” attacks you are talking about. Pointing out what Luther actually wrote and taught is very legitimate and isn’t “personal” bashing as you are defining it. Many of us raised in Protestantism had Luther held up as the guy that did it. But I was never taught what he actually wrote which is pretty violent to Jews, peasants, Anabaptists etc. Luther’s plan of extermination of the Jews was used by Hitler. That for me was a huge wait a minute moment in which I begin to question everything I was ever lead to believe about him. There are some Protestant web sites and blogs that take a much harder position on Luther than any Catholic one. Google search it out yourself. I am curious as to why you want to come on a Catholic forum to tell Catholics that they are wrong in “bashing” Luther when Protestant web sites are probably much worst. Except for our Lutheran friends, I would wager 90% of Protestants of any stripe have not read the things he actually wrote and taught. It is all just talk about him standing up to that rotten old Catholic church and broke free which now has resulted in 30K + Protestant denominations. If you don’t think that shouldn’t be discussed and the man that started it, I am not sure what to say but one can’t ignore looking at the man behind it all.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=DaddyGirl;12339725]Luther was a “sinner”?
How do people say he was a sinner?

By now, I’d hope there is realization that everyone except Mary and Jesus are without sin.

I have sinned, you have sinned, Luther has sinned.

I’d imagine Catholics would be very praising of Martin Luther, because he spoke out about abuses and hypocrisy in the Catholic church and sought to put an end to it!

They do not praise him for this?

Let’s not get carried away. We recognize him for what he pointed out, and hypocrisy isn’t a good thing.

I taught years ago as an undergrad that Luther didn’t intend for the Reformation.

 

[KathleenGee]

I am also aware of what Spina shared of the abuses and abuse of priestly celibacy in times of Luther.

Likewise there were many devout German priests and lay persons who worked very hard in counteracting such behavior and subsequent loss of faith through scandal. But true reform cannot come through lay people. It must come through the Church, and the Council of Trent addressed all that which led to abuse, misappropriation, and clerical immorality which was also prevalent in Italy going back to the times of Francis, Dominic, and S. Catherine of Siena. This regarded so many hundreds of years of growing clericalism.

But what Sola Scriptura did was wipe out the reality and truth of apostolic succession; the apostles and their successors have a complete history of succession never broken. There were countless saints who experienced great love of our Lord in times of scandal and abuse, just as there are now.

What was wiped out was the common faith of one bread and one body, the truth and meaning of the Eucharist, the sacraments, including confession and Holy Orders, as well as the permanency of marriage.

A faithful Catholic has faith that is centered on the Lord in the full deposit of faith given to us. It does not mean that Catholics are better. But we have access to the fullness of faith and knowledge and life in Christ, we have the communion of saints, we have such a history of teaching us the faith and how to practice it, we have our martyrs, pastors, virgins, holy women whose testimonies are remembered in the daily Mass or the liturgy of the hours, and we pray for the dead.

We believe that heaven is made present to us here on earth in the Mass that completes our understanding of Revelations.

Our supper is the Supper of the Lamb. And we are united at the table with all other believers who share in this ancient faith.

Yes, I do think it is important for people to study the fullness Luther’s character as he is the father of the Reformation, and yes, he did have ideas that were not implemented until Vatican II…but likewise, there were abuses in Vatican II…and an interior movement in the Church to remove the salt of our faith, to make our religion modern…and easy, and this caused the loss of faith of many Catholics.

We cannot compromise that which has been given us by the apostles.

And St. Catherine of Siena exhorted us to pray and do penance for our priests as they are the Ministers of the Blood, the provide us the life of Christ Himself from their hands.

We are likewise to embrace the Cross and to do penance for our sins…and to not take God so commonly.

I read a few years ago the story of the wife of Composer Mendelssohn and they were deciding on where to have their wedding as in the beginning of the 1800’s in Europe they were witnessing off based movements within the Evangelicals. They got married in a French Reformed Church in Germany.

We have the Church who is Mother who guides and nurtures, not an end in herself, but that which leads us to Christ and to a deeper faith in life with Him.

 

[Contarini]

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.

That isn’t her point. Her point (with which I wholly agree) is that instead of making reasoned arguments about those doctrinal differences, some Catholics on these forums take a “short-cut” and attack Luther, apparently in the belief that if they can tear down Protestant veneration for Luther Protestants will see the light. The assumption seems to be that Protestants are swayed by their respect for Luther’s authority into believing things they would not otherwise believe.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Op, your opening line did quite a good job of bashing Luther. I’m not sure what you mean by bashing but trying to discuss the actual things Luther did teach and write should be discussed. If you really read some of the things he wrote, they are pretty violent in nature especially against the Jews and anyone that disagreed with Luther. While most Protestants talk about Luther, admire Luther to some extent and think of him as some kind of hero is standing up to that big old bad Catholic Church, most Protestants have not actually read him and what he wrote. There seems to be a mystic about Luther with Protestants and it shuts down the conversation, not enhance it when Luther isn’t talked about in the fear of bashing him. Your opening line and its description of him as a lunatic is bashing. Discussing the realities of what he taught and wrote isn’t bashing, it is striping down the myths around him and exposing him and the realities of what he taught which has splintered Christianity.

The proper way to do this is the following:

1. Make a solid theological argument about some point of difference between Catholicism and Protestantism.
2. When the “Luther mystique” gets in the way of that discussion, address it.

Catholic posters on this forum vastly exaggerate the “Luther mystique” and its importance. This mystique certainly does exist and needs to be challenged. But it seems to have become an excuse on this forum for Catholic posters to spend all their energies tearing down Luther and the hypothetical views Protestants hold about him.

Edwin

 

[7_Sorrows]

That isn’t her point. Her point (with which I wholly agree) is that instead of making reasoned arguments about those doctrinal differences, some Catholics on these forums take a “short-cut” and attack Luther, apparently in the belief that if they can tear down Protestant veneration for Luther Protestants will see the light. The assumption seems to be that Protestants are swayed by their respect for Luther’s authority into believing things they would not otherwise believe.

Edwin

And I would say the same thing happens on other websites that are anti-catholic. They attack the Pope, Mary, statues, saints, etc.
I suppose they also hope Catholics will see the light.

 

[Contarini]

But this is the foundation of Protestantism… that not only individuals with a gift for interpretation or appointed leaders with the authority to bind, but ALL individuals are able and intended to interpret for themselves the meaning of Scripture (and as a whole) and then all have one mind, with one faith, one baptism, one communion and come together in one council.

This is the pattern that Martin Luther was responsible for stting against the harmony of Catholicism, wheather alone or not, he was a responsible agent of division. And like someone quoted the Catechism, so were the Catholic clergy who abused the gospel which created an unhealthy environment.

First of all, if you think Catholicism in the early sixteenth century was harmonious, you don’t know much about it.

But in the second and more important place, you don’t get to tell Protestants what the foundation of their faith is. Perhaps you should listen instead.

The Reformers did indeed have a naive expectation that all sincere people, guided by the Spirit, would come together around the Word of God. They were wrong about that. The question is: how to go forward now.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

And I would say the same thing happens on other websites that are anti-catholic. They attack the Pope, Mary, statues, saints, etc.
I suppose they also hope Catholics will see the light.

This is the “tu quoque” fallacy. If the Protestants complaining about Catholic behavior were somehow responsible for these other forums, you would have a point. Since they aren’t, you don’t. Of course plenty of Protestant forums are reprehensible. I agree with Jon that this forum has generally been much superior to most other such forums. So why compare this forum with all the garbage out there on the Internet? Why try to turn this forum into a mirror image of nasty Protestant anti-Catholic forums? It makes no sense.

Edwin