Luther-Bashing is Anti-Catholic


Oh, I wouldn’t say Eck is forgotten. He’s in New Advent, minus the anti-Judaism, of course.
I think it is your own hyperbole regarding the wanting to destroy part.
More importantly, please name someone who has defended Luther’s anti-Judaic writings.


The Catholic Catechism says there was blame on both sides. Further, Zwingli and the Anabaptists are not connected to Luther. Calvin was also not.

He was told to recant. Pursuing them would have placed him in the same condition.

I think the Catholic Church has its share of “rotten fruit”, too. That said, I’ll let the Lutherans respond to this


Since His Church is one from the beginning, those who left aren’t in the true Church then.

  1. Point is, You haven’t opened the links I gave you that answer your questions.
  2. Another link you didn’t open, describes errors to avoid, primarily errors 3-6 explain what I’m primarily talking about

Those who commit those errors are the problem I’m pointing to. You operate from the misnomer ALL churches are equal. No one is better than the other. So, here’s a test. Can you name which error that is, in the list of 8 errors to avoid? And why is that notion an error, and therefore a view to avoid?


Eck was a Catholic theologian refuting Martin Luther. Of course, it is no surprise that he should appear in Catholic history. New Advent can post whatever they want—the same for any other Protestant websites. If you go to any church today and ask people if they have ever heard of either Luther or Eck, what would your guess be? Besides, you are discussing Luther, not Eck.

The Church made many efforts to reach out to Luther. But Luther declined them. His responses were often full of insults toward the pope. Luther went ahead and founded his own church.

There were methods which members of Church employed in reaching out to Luther that in retrospect could have done better. But the Church would never take any blame for the heresies espoused by Luther, other Protestant reformers, and the Reformation. Show me where in The Catechism of the Catholic Church that the Catholic Church accepts shared blame for the Protestant Reformation?

We are discussing the heresies and hatred espoused by Luther which the Church would never accept. If you want to discuss the sins committed by members of the Catholic Church, you are welcome to open another thread.


Since His Church is not limited to those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, leaving His Church involves more than being in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

I wasn’t asking what others think. I was asking what you think. But I’ve already dropped it.


AND as an aside, Eck didn’t leave the Church nor divide the Church, nor teach heresy, all things Luther did…

Calvin like Luther was a Catholic, as was Henry VIII.

All of them followed Luther’s actions. As time rolled on, THEN, more rebels rebelled from THEM creating their own sects as well.

Jon, scripture condemns that activity they committed, as it condemns those who do it and won’t return to unity. I’ve quoted the scripture passages dozens of times.


Yeah, I don’t see “St. Mark’s Eckian Church” down the street. Luther is the one with his name on churches…not Eck.


Meanwhile, covering up this apparently important point, since it is brought up about Luther rather regularly. I am discussing the what the OP phrased as the Anti-Catholic Bashing of Luther.
Discussing Luther’s anti-Judaic writings is not bashing Luther. Trying to hide or minimize the context of the era he lived in and the Catholic anti-Judaic writings is bashing. So, I am talking about the bashing of Luther. If you want to hide or excuse Eck because of a lack notoriety in the pews, with the intent of making it look like Luther was alone in this, that is bashing. It is also the topic of the thread.

The Catholic Church tried to have him executed.

IT should. After all, it was the Catholic Church that was teaching Ockham and Biel in Germany at the time.
**Wounds to unity

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."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272


The Opening Post

I think I’m spot on topic.


That is an argument you can make. IOW, the anti-Judaism is not the issue. Hence, when Catholics bring it up out of context in order to conflate that with the teachings that divide us, it is polemical and bashing.

No they didn’t. Hank had no fondness for Luther. Calvin and Luther were never in communion together. So, they didn’t follow Luther.
But the charge that they all followed Luther (but didn’t) I characterize as the Lemming Theory. IT is as if Luther had some magical power of them. Nonsense. Each was responsible for their actions.

No. It condemns division. The division is a two-way street.


Luther was a heretic. Eck wasn’t.


This wasn’t about anti sematism.

So why did ALL the others, follow the golden rules of the revolt started by Luther?

  1. faith alone
  2. scripture alone That is, a reduced scripture (scripture lite) minus 7 OT books

If they are all their own bosses, and no one followed the other, why did they follow Luther in this?

That presumes both parties are equal. They’re NOT. NOT even close.


Did you not just bring up Eck?

There is no effort from the Catholic Church to hide Eck. He stands on his own before God’s judgement for his anti-Semitic writings. I would like love to hear your evidence that the Catholic Church “tried to execute” Luther.

In your quote, #269, it also says about distinguishing heresy, apostasy and schism. Note the Church did not say anything about share blame on Luther’s heresies.

Again, pointing to Luther’s own words and works is not bashing.


But that was the context of Eck. That’s why I brought him up.

Are you under the mistaken impression that Luther and Calvin held to the same soteriology?
The Anglican Bible in my parish has st least 73 books. We regularly read from D.C. books.
Zwingli and the Anabaptists held completely different views on sacraments.
They didn’t follow Luther.

Sure they are.


Luther was a product of his times, and his experience. The anti-semitism didn’t start with him! He received his spiritual formation from the CC, and we have to look to that source to understand him better.

I don’t think any of us can say this. Just because his writings did not contain anything that indicates repentance does not mean that he did not have remorse about the consequences of his actions, or that he did not reconcile with God.

I don’t think that we can say he wanted to destroy the CC either. The papacy, certainly, but Luther believed (as Lutherans do today) that his faith is a valid continuation of the Catholic Church.

Luther witnessed excesses, abuses, and misconduct. The Catholic persons and practices he observed led him to this rebellion. It did not happen in a vacuum. The CC was not innocent either, or else a counter Reformation would not have been needed.

Any “true” ecumenism will take responsibility for sins committed by Catholics that created an environment for these wounds to occur. To blame everything on Luther and the Reformation is failure to look at the log in our own eye.


:rofl::joy: And if you posted a link about it, most of them wouldn’t read it!


That is a truly sad state of affairs! How are we to prevent making the same mistakes if we don’t learn from our own history?


One of the biggest problems is people wanting to exist in their own bubble.


Were Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin and Mussolini products of their times and experiences? How would one view those who resisted them and even died in their hands? Were those resisted these people not also products of the same times and experiences? The same goes for slave owners and abolitionists… Where is conscience during these times or anytime? Is conscience a product of times and experiences too?

By your logic, we can not judge Hitler either because no one really knows if he expressed remorse, or reconciled with God—even though there was no evidence that he repented. So, in your opinion, who really was Hilter? Was Hitler even evil? By the way, anti-Semitic did not start with Hitler either.

Luther wanted to abolished the papacy and the Holy Orders. He called popes and bishops “fools”—among other choiced names. What would be left of the Catholic Church without popes, bishops and priests? Who would administer the sacraments? Who would say Mass and consecrate the Eucharist? Aren’t all of these amount to the destruction of the Catholic Church? As for Luther’s Church is a continuation of the Catholic Church? What does that even mean? If Luther chose to leave the Catholic Church, why would he even want to “continue” the Catholic Church?

No one said that members, or those in the Hierarchy, of the Catholic Church are without sins. We are all sinners. What Catholics should not do is to submit to heresies and leave the Church. Luther was right in pointing out the abuses in the Church. They were in fact sins committed by members of the Church. No one disputes that. It is important to note that, had Luther chosen to work with the Church to correct those abuses, I believe he would have been a great reformer. But, instead, he submitted himself to heresies and left the Church on his own free will—leaving Pope Leo X no choice but to excommunicate him.

Council of Trent did call out Martin Luther by name and condemned the heresies that he espoused. But the Council also dealt with other important issues and contents (the sacraments, the Mass, justification, salvation, heresies, Biblical canon, etc…) It took the Council Fathers 18 years to finish their work.

Of course, sins must be acknowledged by all sides for reconciliation to occur. True ecumenism guides souls to the truth of Christ and to the Church—not away from the Church.


I agree except for this, In his 95 Thesis he also trashed Transubstantiation among other things that I am not as well versed in. Transubstantiation isn’t an abuse.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading.


Thank you for pointing that out. I wanted to say, in general, the abuses—not all 95 theses listed—were sins. Transubstantion is certainly not a sin.

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