The Wisdom of Personal Attacks on Martin Luther

[Per_Crucem]

Oh… just throw me under the bus. That’s one way to livin’ up the discussion. Is that the good ole mid west mentality?

LOL Jah, you betcha

 

[robwar]

Have you watched many of the Lutheran Satire videos?

mocking others is in the same vein as bashing which was suppose to be the initial complaint of this thread that Catholics spend too much time bashing Martin Luther. However bashing is in the eye of the reader and mocking and satire is pretty much the same stream of things. So having some kind of post that says medieval Popes produce bull is not much different than Catholics “bashing” Martin Luther. I think if the shoe fits wear it and having a Protestant come on a Catholic forum to complain that we spend too much time bashing some dead guy from the 1500’s that caused Christianity to split up is a bit beyond the pale here. If Lutherans spend their time making satirical videos instead of trying to discuss things more power to them. People use mocking and satire when they don’t have substance behind them.

 

[steido01]

Well, I don’t think I’d go that far.

Me either.

Also, y’all are making me thirsty with this Spotted Cow talk. I may need to hop over to Wisconsin after work…

 

[Per_Crucem]

mocking others is in the same vein as bashing which was suppose to be the initial complaint of this thread that Catholics spend too much time bashing Martin Luther. However bashing is in the eye of the reader and mocking and satire is pretty much the same stream of things. So having some kind of post that says medieval Popes produce bull is not much different than Catholics “bashing” Martin Luther. I think if the shoe fits wear it and having a Protestant come on a Catholic forum to complain that we spend too much time bashing some dead guy from the 1500’s that caused Christianity to split up is a bit beyond the pale here. If Lutherans spend their time making satirical videos instead of trying to discuss things more power to them. People use mocking and satire when they don’t have substance behind them.

You’ll notice, however, that the thread wasn’t started by a Lutheran. I, for one, could care less about Luther bashing any more than bashing any other theologian from history. If we do have a complaint, it is more that those who do bash Luther use it as some sort of weapon to try to convert us to Catholicism.

As for Luther himself, though, who cares? If the bashing is unfair, it is them that will stand before God. So, we can either add levity to the discussion or we can scowl and beat our fists on tables defending or attacking a dead person.

 

[steido01]

mocking others is in the same vein as bashing which was suppose to be the initial complaint of this thread that Catholics spend too much time bashing Martin Luther. However bashing is in the eye of the reader and mocking and satire is pretty much the same stream of things.

I disagree. Satire is not the same as ‘bashing.’

Informed people can use satire, sarcasm and comedy as tools to teach facts (I’m thinking of a female Catholic on here who is particularly skilled at using memes to teach - she knows who she is ).

But bashing is a mindset. Coming at a thread with an ax to grind, twisting facts and quotes -sometimes so that they are used to mean literally the opposite of what was intended by the author- just to advance one’s agenda is clearly disingenuous.

 

[KathleenGee]

Spina…

What made things worse before the split, and my own point that we do not follow individual theologians but follow the communion of believers through divinely appointed offices, the theologian who had jurisdiction over Luther’s issues refused to speak to him. Then there were communication lapses with Pope Leo that further exacerbated Luther.

About Luther bashing, he had the great gift of hyperbole and propaganda. After the split, he put out writings to the entire German nation which was going through its own stage of nationalism – ‘To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation’, ‘On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church’, ‘On the Freedom of the Christian Man’. ‘To the Nobility’…call for ending priestly celibacy, Masses for the dead. He also called for leadership of the Church to be done on the local level. Luther’s idea of the priesthood was simply for order in the assembly.

Luther is the one who called the pope the Anti Christ…and up through today there are many within Christiandom who hold on to his sentiments, although I do not see such among Lutheran believers.

A side note here…Luther intensely sought more than anything assurance for his salvation. Christ calls us to pick up our cross and follow Him daily and to serve others in need…‘I was thirsty and you gave Me drink, …’ All we can do is walk in faith and be as obedient to the Lord as we can and trust in His mercy.

I don’t think anyone can be given assurance for one’s salvation hearing Christ, but if anything it is most clear His forgiveness and love for us. We cannot find our salvation on paper or a decree, but in relationship with Our Lord and His divine will.

 

[robwar]

You’ll notice, however, that the thread wasn’t started by a Lutheran. I, for one, could care less about Luther bashing any more than bashing any other theologian from history. If we do have a complaint, it is more that those who do bash Luther use it as some sort of weapon to try to convert us to Catholicism.

As for Luther himself, though, who cares? If the bashing is unfair, it is them that will stand before God. So, we can either add levity to the discussion or we can scowl and beat our fists on tables defending or attacking a dead person.

I am totally aware of that.

 

[robwar]

I disagree. Satire is not the same as ‘bashing.’

Informed people can use satire, sarcasm and comedy as tools to teach facts (I’m thinking of a female Catholic on here who is particularly skilled at using memes to teach - she knows who she is ).

But bashing is a mindset. Coming at a thread with an ax to grind, twisting facts and quotes -sometimes so that they are used to mean literally the opposite of what was intended by the author- just to advance one’s agenda is clearly disingenuous.

I think we will have to agree to disagree but who came on this thread with an ax to grind? How can anyone claim that anyone has a bashing mindset? Do you or anyone else have that kind of insight? I think it is always the best to let your yes be yes and no be no and anything else is of the evil one. Jesus gave that advise. Maybe some need to review it. Satire and sarcasm are forms of bashing.

 

[rcwitness]

Also, y’all are making me thirsty with this Spotted Cow talk. I may need to hop over to Wisconsin after work…

Hmmmm… wish I was a hop away. I’d even happily pay an Illinois toll to get one. But im moving down to the southern most state of Brasil soon and there is huge German Culture down there. We know what that means. And I’m not talkin about a St Lutheran festival.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Me either.

Also, y’all are making me thirsty with this Spotted Cow talk. I may need to hop over to Wisconsin after work…

Woot.

Too bad Green Bay is too far north! But we’re moving to the other Lutheran homeland this weekend (MN).

 

[spina1953]

Spina…

What made things worse before the split, and my own point that we do not follow individual theologians but follow the communion of believers through divinely appointed offices, the theologian who had jurisdiction over Luther’s issues refused to speak to him. Then there were communication lapses with Pope Leo that further exacerbated Luther.

About Luther bashing, he had the great gift of hyperbole and propaganda. After the split, he put out writings to the entire German nation which was going through its own stage of nationalism – ‘To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation’, ‘On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church’, ‘On the Freedom of the Christian Man’. ‘To the Nobility’…call for ending priestly celibacy, Masses for the dead. He also called for leadership of the Church to be done on the local level. Luther’s idea of the priesthood was simply for order in the assembly.

Luther is the one who called the pope the Anti Christ…and up through today there are many within Christiandom who hold on to his sentiments, although I do not see such among Lutheran believers.

A side note here…Luther intensely sought more than anything assurance for his salvation. Christ calls us to pick up our cross and follow Him daily and to serve others in need…‘I was thirsty and you gave Me drink, …’ All we can do is walk in faith and be as obedient to the Lord as we can and trust in His mercy.

I don’t think anyone can be given assurance for one’s salvation hearing Christ, but if anything it is most clear His forgiveness and love for us. We cannot find our salvation on paper or a decree, but in relationship with Our Lord and His divine will.

Hi Kathleen Gee: I could not agree more! I see that you have read those things that Luther wrote which lambasted The CC, the Pope and all that the CC stood for. One thing that I found out was that many of the theologians of the time teaching in the universities mainly in parts of Germany, were teaching theologies that the CC itself did not teach. Many were humanists and were against scholasticism as a teaching tool. And yes, it was Luther who called the Papacy and the Pope the anti-Christ, which shows just how far Luther was willing to go in his slenderest vocal condemning all that the CC taught since the time of the Apostles. He knew no authority except himself when it came to interpreting Scripture and anyone else whether it was the CC or others were incorrect. yet, in the end Luther caused a the very split in Western Christianity which also split among themselves over doctrines and Scriptural understandings that continue today. Protestants could not agree among themselves during Luther’s time nor do they in our modern day and age. Yet, since the beginning of the CC the CC has never once taught something different than what the Apostles handed down from generation to generation. This can’t be said about the Protestant Reformation.

 

[rfournier103]

I personally think that attacks on Martin Luther are pointless. We can debate the wisdom of his actions (and we do); but he’s dead, and so are all his buddies. Done is done, as they say.

Did the Church need some changes for the better? Absolutely. Was Luther justified in following the course of action he did? The Church and most Catholics say “no”.

That being said, I think the Church has learned from this. If attacking Marty is “unwise”; what IS wise is learning from the mistakes the Church made in handling him, his followers, and the whole situation.

Today the Church has several “rogue” groups within it displaying varying degrees of disobedience. I’m sure we all know who they are and what they want; so no need to go into it here. The Church could either: ignore these groups, declare them heretics/schismatic, and hope they go away; OR the Church can talk, negotiate, and work it out. I am happy to see the Church has learned a lesson from its dealings with Luther and is going with the latter of the two options.

Just a point of clarification. It really doesn’t matter what most Catholics say. The Catholic Church is hierarchical. We have the “Ecclesia discens” (learning Church) and the “Ecclesia docens” (teaching Church).

I am well aware of the hierarchical nature of the Church. Truth be told, Martin Luther doesn’t matter to most Catholics one way or the other. If I asked the guy who sits next to me at mass every week if he knew who Martin Luther was, I’d bet you a million dollars he would say “no”.

Of course it doesn’t matter what most Catholics think, BUT I would venture that almost all of the participants on this thread are laymen. Such as it is, our opinions change nothing, but we’re discussing it all the same.

Oh, and by the way, “Exsurge Domine”, Leo X’s Bull against Luther and his errors, is still on the books. An expiration date was never stamped on it.

I think you misunderstand me. In no way am I taking sides against the Church, or taking Luther’s side in this at all.

I think that to attack the MAN is useless, but that in no way means that his actions and his errors are safe from criticism. Personally, I prefer to discuss the RESULTS of his actions than the man himself.

What errors did the Church make in handling him?

I think the Church could have heard him out and at least listened to what he had to say. For example - the selling of indulgences… did that have to continue? That was one of his main greivances, and rightly so.

I am not saying that the Protestants breaking away from the Church could have been avoided; but it is my personal opinion (and it’s JUST that - an opinion) that MAYBE more could have been done to prevent it.

If you have any question about my loyalty to the Church or think I am too sympathetic to Luther; instant message me. I certainly want to make sure that I clear that up for you.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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.

I think anyone who’s had a simple college course in logic and/or philosophy knows that ad hominem arguments in themselves can’t be given any weight. You’re right–they will never, ever “get anywhere.”

As I’ve mentioned before on threads here, the much bigger danger IMO are distortions or outright falsehoods promulgated about the history of the Reformation. (For example, I once again heard the “Luther took books out of the Bible” canard from Jimmy Akin on CAL just this past week.) Also, many people seem to think that the Reformation boils down to one man and a dispute over the sale of indulgences, probably due to some oversimplified history they read in high school, I’m not sure. True enough, one could point to indulgences as a fuse that ignited the explosion, but the Reformation was much more than that.

People in what is now central Europe had been complaining of widespread corruption in the Church for centuries. (Read the Carmina Burana for example.) Once they had another viable religious option, tens (maybe hundreds?) of thousands of people simply voted with their feet, and no wonder. People will only put up with corrupt authority for so long and then comes the revolution. That to me is the much more important story of the Reformation, rather than Martin Luther’s mental stability, or lack thereof, or what to most people at the time would have seemed like arcane theological debates among the reformers themselves. People eventually felt free enough to leave the church–and they did–in droves.

We now live in a world where I would guess more people leave the Catholic Church in a year than probably left the Catholic Church in all of 16th century Europe. Fortunately for everyone, this action no longer seems to disturb Catholics much, nor does it result in wars and rioting and revolution. But people still vote with their feet and feel free disagree with the teaching of the Catholic Church in some way or another. That was the real change eventually brought about by the Reformation–religious options and the ability and freedom for people to decide for themselves.

 

[Peter_J]

Quote:
Originally Posted by robwar
The best critics of Protestants are other Protestants.

mocking others is in the same vein as bashing which was suppose to be the initial complaint of this thread that Catholics spend too much time bashing Martin Luther. However bashing is in the eye of the reader and mocking and satire is pretty much the same stream of things.

I believe we agree: some satire falls under the category of “bashing” someone else. As I always say (although mostly to myself) not everything on the WWW is worth reading (or listening to or watching).

 

[Topper17]

Hi 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.

I agree. It is Luther’s importance that demands that he be studied and that we attempt to understand him as well as we can. After all, it was Luther’s teaching of Sola Scriptura and the Right of the Individual to Personal Interpretation of Scripture which unleashed the rampant denominalization of the last 500 years. Either he was right to challenge the doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church or he was wrong. This is a crucial issue. If he was wrong, it means that Protestantism was built on an errant claim to personal authority.

The problem is that ‘right’ to Private Interpretation keeps getting in the way of actual dialogue.

Back in the day I got pretty good at arguing Catholocism from Scripture. It took me a few years to learn that it wasn’t very effective because everybody would simply state:

“Oh No Topper – you misunderstand that verse. You have to view that verse in the context of THIS verse, (which I like a lot better than ‘your verse’), and which correctly interpreted, these verses say this…………………… So Topper, now you see that you and the Catholic Church are wrong and I and my denomination are right…………………”

It became very clear to me that arguing from Scripture does not work all that effectively. Given Luther’s doctrines of Sola Scriptura and the Right of the Individual to (correctly) Interpret, all someone has to do to PROVE you wrong is to simply pronounce it. (Just like Luther did BTW). This is not to say of course that Catholics should not be well-versed in Scripture. Just the opposite is true.

From this realization I turned to the question of whether actually God wants us to know his Absolute (doctrinal) Truths. I concluded that of course He does. But if Scriptural arguments are so very rarely compelling to the ‘other side’, then what could be?

I came to the conclusion that the answer had to lie at the beginning of our differences, in other words, 16th Century Germany, and specifically Martin Luther. Either he was wrong or he was right to challenge/refute so many important established doctrines. The question as to which it is, is crucial.

I also realized that God’s Absolute Truth SHOULD be much more obvious as the truth, than that which is NOT His Truth. With this I decided that the Truth should be able to be recognized as such in the arguments made by Luther against the Church and vice versa. With one being God’s Absolute Truth, one should be MUCH more compelling than the other.

Studying the arguments of both sides has led to a much better understanding of Martin Luther the man, his teachings, and also his motives and his character. While getting a better understanding of the man I gradually began to understand why the “Legend” that I had learned as a child was SO different than the historical figure. The Truth about him calls into question his ‘authority’ to teach against the established doctrines of the Church.

As you mention, Luther’s motives for ‘finding’ Salvation by Faith Alone in Scripture are part of this puzzle. I would agree that his scrupulosity is behind that ‘finding’, and as such, in order to get to the bottom of who was right and who was wrong, we have no choice but to delve into Luther the man and why he did what he did. As we have seen, Protestants and specifically Lutherans are opposed to discussing Luther the man, which should in and of itself, be a major clue.

God Bless You manual, Topper

 

[Topper17]

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.

Hi Ben,

We should remember that the Dialogue was written by a group of Catholics and Lutherans working together to chart a course to reunification. I applaud their intent but, after several decades of dialogue, am not all that thrilled with their lack of actual progress. The above statement does not represent the official teachings of any Lutheran denomination and in fact, I am not sure how it could ever be incorporated as a statement of Lutheranism overall given how much Lutheranism is fractured.

These ‘official statements’ are not always all that meaningful, unless they really ARE Official, As you know, the official statement of the LCMS on Luther’s ‘final attitude’ towards the Jews turned out to be pretty different than what you thought it was.

I am not sure I understand the last portion of that Dialogue quote. How, specifically and exactly, do “Lutherans today reject Luther’s identification of the pope with the Antichrist” when that is exactly what the Lutheran Confessions say?

God Bless You Ben, Topper

 

[Catholic_farmer]

To address the OP’s initial statement, I do think stating the facts and staying away from getting personal is always a good idea, and certainly more charitable.

I made a snide remark about Martin Luther marrying a nun and was appropriately called out on it.

It doesn’t do any good to get personal.

 

[KathleenGee]

I was 6 years old when I first received my Holy Communion. My sister thought I was getting married.

I remember receiving the host and sensing this scrubbing effect over my entire soul…scrubbing the dirt away so to speak.

The following year, we watched “Marcellino”, Italian movie about an orphan boy adopted by Italian friars. He was so small and when a little boy, got up into the attic to see Christ’s statue…Christ on the Cross…and began to converse with Him. The friars had told him not to go up into the attic for fear of hurting himself.

Christ came alive and had the most beautiful words for the child. One day the little boy was bit by a scorpion and was dying, and if I recall right, the friars went up and saw a miracle, the boy going back up into the attic to be cradled by Christ Himself.

The language, spirit and tone of Christ was exactly how I received Him in my soul. I cried all the way home and never lost my faith in the Eucharist.

So I think those many people who left the Church during the Reformation were primed for whatever reason, and already left Christ before that in the Eucharist, Word, and sacraments to find that which appealed to themselves.

It gets down to authority. Those priests and nuns leaving in droves in Germany, which itself was most destructive of Catholic culture, edifices and monasteries, makes me think of the Immaculate Heart of Mary sisters in LA. So many years back, Carl Jung came in to give a seminar on finding their true selves within themselves, and he admitted later that he inadvertently pretty much destroyed the congregation because the sisters all left in droves as well.

Many priests and religious left their vocations through false teachings of Vatican II.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Closed for lack of charity