Luther-Bashing is Anti-Catholic

And the Catholic Church from other Christian communions. Because division is always two-way.

And that Church exists wherever people gather around word and sacrament. Peter is not limited to one see, anymore than Christ is. The order of the keys, given first to Peter then to the rest for the entire Church is not exclusively in the control of the Bishop of Rome.

As a Catholic, you don’t have to agree when a pope speaks fallibly. Otherwise it would be a cult.

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

The Church did not change after Vatican II. Whatever positions the Church took on ecumenical affairs before are still acceptable teachings.


Source, please?

And the pope could overturn either, I suppose.

Martin Luther was excommunicated by the Church, an unrepented heretic and a ferocious anti-Semite. He denounced the papacy, the Holy Orders, and the Eucharist.

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

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

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

Martin Luther never retracted nor expressed remorse for his comments.

1 Like

You just leap at the chance to bash him, don’t you?

Is this following your popes’ example on ecumenical relations?

How is quoting Luther’s filthy works verbatim, ‘bashing him’?! Can we not expose his works to stir the hearts of those who ignorantly follow his theology, to reconcile them back to the Church Christ founded?


Right, ‘commemorated’, and not celebrated. Huge distinction there.


So now I see what you mean: you think that speaking of unpleasant facts constitutes bashing, and you have an odd fantasy that things recent Popes have said confirm that. You’re wrong on both counts; nothing the Holy Fathers have said can rationally be construed as meaning what you think, and your claims to the contrary reflect poorly on you.


Well, maybe, just maybe if any of those Lutheran pastors would have let us in on the real Martin Luther and his works, and how he really felt about the Pope, Jews (of which Our Blessed Lord is a Jew), his denigration of women, his obsession with the devil and farting, the removal of seven canonical books of Scripture etc. etc. then, maybe we would not feel the innate urge to expose these facts to those Lutherans who still have no idea. And, for those Lutherans who are aware of the real Luther and keep coy and mum on purpose… oh, my, dear…

1 Like

Luther-Bashing is Anti-Catholic, i am one who has fallen into doing such anti-Catholic habits. But what i would like to say is that surely we cannot equate bashing and pointing out ones errors?

Also, i fail to see how Luther could be justified for separating from the Church and creating his own Church, which is one of the reasons why i point out his error and condemn it.

I read a part of his theses and i was horrified as to what he said about the Chair of Peter. I would be surprised if he was commended for what he said, by the Vatican. But this is only my opinion.

Correct me if I’m wrong

1 Like

Also, with that being said, if the Lutherans can be brought back to the Church than surely the Church must try. But, this must be done without falling into Luther’s heresy and appeasing anything contrary to Catholic dogma.



and here is what he wrote about the papacy:

Some of the stuff he said is sad and makes me surprised. Showing his work is not Luther-bashing because these are his thoughts and words

Edit: I also would like to say that although he made the mistake of leaving the Church and insulting the Papacy like that, he is still deserving of forgiveness as well as his followers.


That approach is the one the Church has abandoned. It just makes you look bad and makes others angry. It is ineffectual. It gives the impression you just want to smear him. And a lot of the “exposure” is false information.

Though the man is certainly worth praying for (which he did not believe in!), his error was rightly condemned and officially opposed at Trent. Truth matters, and souls that were lead astray matter.

We live in an age of pervasive, corrosive and tyrannical relativism. The fact that modern Lutherans do not follow their forefather’s teachings reflects better on them and worse on him.

Look, the man was deeply, profoundly disturbed psychologically. Even those who fawned over him, such as Philipp Melanchthon, made mention of this within their praise of the man.

The fact that ‘saving faith’ is defined as faith which one believes will save them is utterly radical, not supported by scripture, and makes a mockery of the Lord’s constant call to repentance.

Despite the goodness of modern Lutherans, the dangerous errors of you-know-who must be pointed out since, last I heard, truth still exists and still matters.

1 Like

The Church should work towards reconciliation. The thing is, it has shown how it wants it done, and this is not that way.

Joe1… Well said and thank you. All souls are worthy to be forgiven and be granted mercy. But, the process must be based on truth, sincerity and honesty. Things do get worse if we ignore them.


[quote=“po18guy, post:72, topic:469608, full:true”] The fact that modern Lutherans do not follow their forefather’s teachings reflects better on them and worse on him.

So why attack him, if they are not following him?

are you referring to what the Church is doing for reconciliation or what i suggested?

We aren’t attacking the person of Martin Luther. We are merely exposing his works for what they are. Wouldn’t you want to know if your denominational founder’s works were vile and lewd? Or, would you want to remain in the naive comfort of not knowing?

I am referring to the fact there is a dissonance between the methods of ecumenism that the Church requires its members to follow, and is following, and the sordid methodology being followed here, which has never worked and is in opposition to the Church. It is amazing to me that Catholics who are posting here, theoretically engaging in ecumenism, have no idea as to how to go about it. They wind up wounding the Body of Christ further with their antics.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit