Luther-Bashing is Anti-Catholic


Which one? Here they are.

He trashed nothing in the 95 Theses. They were debate points, not a doctrinal state. They are mostly about the abuses of indulgences


I mean why join a Catholic church when you can join a church named after Luther.


So that makes Eck’s anti-Judaic writings okay ?


I repeat, Luther was a heretic. Eck was not. Luther founded his own church. Eck did not.


You mean why join the ROMAN Catholic Church.

Do you see how that works? One petty little flippant remark gets another. It doesn’t add to the conversation.
The fact is both of those names have their origins in slurs devised by opponents. And in both instances, members essentially adopted the name.
The Evangelical Catholic Churches that we now know as Lutheran consider themselves Catholic, as well. And whether or not you like it or approve of it is irrelevant.


Great. Your support for Eck’s writings is noted


Actually, whatever Lutheran churches consider themselves is pretty much irrelevant to the fullness of the truth.


As you see it. You’re welcome to your opinion


Luther led millions astray. Nothing to celebrate there.


Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Baptized and confirmed in the catholic faith found in the Lutheran Tradition, and continuing in that faith in the Anglican tradition, I am anything but “led astray”. I celebrate the work of the Spirit in me.


You know that Hank, not Marty, is the flawed vessel draws my interest, so I’m no expert, but I was wondering about that assertion.


Do you mean the claim that he attacks Transubstaniation?
It is actually a new one that I’ve not heard. So, I await on the edge of my seat for clarification


The arch heretic Luther came over the course of his life to decide that he did not believe in the dogma of transubstantiation.


Yep. I read it here first, that it was a member of the 95.


Perhaps “product” is not quite accurate, but we are all influenced by the culture in which we live, and the experiences of our lives.

shaped, influenced. Some people were raised to have more of a conscience.

Conscience is very much shaped by our life experiences. This is why it is so important for us to form our conscience according to our faith. All of us have had some deficits in conscience formation, some more than others.

I would say the evidence suggests that he did not, since he took his own life, but we are not in a position to see the heart of anyone, even our own, so we cannot judge. Only God can do that.

We can judge them by their fruits, and he certainly produced a lot of evil fruit. Good fruit comes from a good tree.


Oohh. Arch-heretic now. Thanks for the update.

That he did not accept Transubstaniation (or consubstantiation) is well known


He certainly considered the papacy to exemplify the antichrist. As far as Holy Orders, he still believed that pastors should be ordained, and so do traditional Lutherans to this day. He retained two of the sacraments, and believed that, though the Eucharist was not a “sacrifice” that only an ordained person should preside over a valid celebration.

For us, certainly, but his concept was that the church was still catholic even with the changes he felt should be made. He believed there should only be one Church, and that what he perceived as abuses, once removed, the Church Catholic would be more pure.

That is my point. He did not choose to leave. From his point of view, the authorities had drifted from the true gospel (left the church). This is why he threw the Bull of excommunication into the fire. From his point of view, it had no validity, since the person who wrote it left the faith, and became the antichrist.

The Orthodox take the same perspective. They believe the Roman Catholic Church left the faith by adding innovations, such as the filoque.

I was not suggesting that they should. I am saying that, from Luther’s point of view, the pope, cardinals, and bishops had already done this. They abandoned the true gospel and replaced it with heresies.

Unfortunately I think a lot of people do dispute this. There is a serious myopic view that all the blame falls upon the Reformers, and many do not look to see what it was they felt needed reform.

As do I my brother!


Yes. He is a heresiarch. Who led millions astray.


Which member was that? I thought his attacks on the sacrifice of the Mass and the Aristotelian contamination of the concept of the Real presence were in different documents than the 95?


I think you’re right. Someone above attributed it to the 95.

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