Luther-Bashing is Anti-Catholic


What doctrines?

Protestants are divided from the Church. Thus don’t make the rules. By insisting on being divided, is to defend division


The ones that were innovations from the early Church, like universal jurisdiction, papal infallibility ex cathedra, to name a couple


I’ve always wanted to quote one of these and reply to it. :slight_smile:


Yeah… now that I have found the delete button, Im going to be doing a lot more of it!


That’s a great point, it is cheap apologetics. I would describe it myself as appealing to the zeitgeist of our age.

What I have found is that Luther’s anti-Jewish writings were really not brought up all that much by his antagonists previous to WWII. If you survey the negative literature, particularly the Catholic literature against Luther previous to WWII, Luther’s writings against the Jews were not the first line of attack. Now though, it’s typically the first thing any Luther-detractor will bring up, Catholic or non-Catholic. Those who use it think this is their “ace” card, when in actuality, Luther is just one of the tips of the giant iceberg. It’s simply illogical to think Luther invented Jewish oppression and that the church didn’t play it’s part in creating the anti-Judaic culture Luther lived in.

I’ve been fascinated by the Luther vs. Eck compare and contrast in this discussion. Here’s another line of argument. While it’s easy to cut-and-paste Luther’s harsh recommendations against the Jews and triumphantly declare, “look how awful!” consider the following Papal Bull “Decet Romanum” against a group of people, known as “Lutherans”:

“On all these we decree the sentences of excommunication, of anathema, of our perpetual condemnation and interdict; of privation of dignities, honours and property on them and their descendants, and of declared unfitness for such possessions; of the confiscation of their goods and of the crime of treason; and these and the other sentences, censures and punishments which are inflicted by canon law on heretics and are set out in our aforesaid missive, we decree to have fallen on all these men to their damnation. We add to our present declaration, by our Apostolic authority, that states, territories, camps, towns and places in which these men have temporarily lived or chanced to visit, along with their possessions—cities which house cathedrals and metropolitans, monasteries and other religious and sacred places, privileged or unprivileged—one and all are placed under our ecclesiastical interdict, while this interdict lasts, no pretext of Apostolic Indulgence (except in cases the law allows, and even there, as it were, with the doors shut and those under excommunication and interdict excluded) shall avail to allow the celebration of mass and the other divine offices. We prescribe and enjoin that the men in question are everywhere to be denounced publicly as excommunicated, accursed, condemned, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them. They are to be strictly shunned by all faithful Christians.”

I would say this statement has some of the same features Luther’s comments against the Jews have. Property is to be confiscated, those adhering to “Lutheranism” are to be treated as criminals against the Empire. They were considered “excommunicated, accursed, condemned, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them. They are to be strictly shunned by all faithful Christians.”

No one wins at this game!


Universal authority, papal infallibility as in ex cathedra, can all be traced back to Jesus teaching to His apostles concerning Peter.

Just to name one example. Jesus, in front of all the apostles, said this about Peter.

[ ἡγούμενος ] the one who rules ] Lk 22:26
look at the definition of that Greek word.

Jesus singles Peter out again in front of the others (settling their argument over who is greatest among THEM) and says this about Peter,

Lk 22 [ ἡγούμενος ]
[ ἡγούμενος ] =

Peter is

  1. to lead …
    a) to go before
    b) to be a leader
  2. to rule, command
  3. to have authority over
  4. a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
  5. used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
  6. the leader in speech, chief, spokesmana)to rule, govern
  1. of rulers
  2. to furnish pasture for food
  3. to nourish
  4. to cherish one’s body, to serve the body
  5. to supply the requisites for the soul’s need

Add up the traits referring to Peter. Peter is to lead, feed, rule, command, have authority over the churches, govern, and control in counsels… make stable his brothers, strengthen them, and confirm them…and be the chief spokesman. And it goes without saying, Jesus expects the apostles to follow Peter’s lead. (look at the definition above for [ ἡγούμενος ]. That ends their argument and every body elses…right?

And let’s not forget [John 17:18-23] there is to be zero division in Our Lord’s plan

All that should also answer the required communion with 1 bishop.

Gee, Sounds like Jesus describes and defends the papacy and His One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church


And you know that all of these opinions and interpretations can and have been refuted, long before the Reformation era. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t believe it. You should, as a Catholic. And it is precisely the reason I am not a Catholic.
It is one of those things that won’t be solved by apologists.


I do because it’s traceable back to Jesus and apostolic history and teaching in unbroken succession. Heresies and schisms FROM the Catholic Church doesn’t negate the validity of Catholic Church as being Our Lord’s Church at all.

That’s your choice.

Let’s put it this way. Free Will is galactically powerful. In the end it is what makes us culpable for what we’ve chosen to do in this life. While there are LOTS of people who DO see the truth and act on it by doing His will, in terms of total numbers though, it’s few in number who live and embrace that. As Jesus said, it’s why in the end few are saved. So they the majority, who won’t obey His will, and obstinately do their will rather than His is why THEY are NOT saved.

I disagree.

And I noticed you didn’t open the link I gave Luther-Bashing is Anti-Catholic I gave the link to show none of what I posted is my opinion


I have seen all of it, from you, from Randy Carson, from Gabriel of 12, to name a few. It all states the Catholic view, ans as I said, that’s fine. But it is till only one interpretation, the Reformation not included. This issue is a thousand years old. You and I won’t solve it.

As you already know, triumphalist talking points don’t work with me. It doesn’t matter who is using them. I’ve been told that I can’t be saved because my infant baptism isn’t valid, because I believe in sacraments, etc.
Christ made no command that a Christian be in communion with with one bishop or another. He commands that we all be one. That we are not all one is a result of our sinful condition. And the blame falls on all of us. However, so does His grace.


You’re assuming that I agree with you that what I believe is heretical. So the commentary you’ve made doesn’t really matter.

The Schism is Rome’s as well. Schism requires two parties.
As for what I believe, the first doesn’t apply, because it isn’t heresy.

Again, triumphalist views have no effect on me. I simply reject them.
I think what I believe is quite in line with St. Paul.


Protestantism is in with the.

The Catholic Church is Established by Jesus on Peter and those in union with him for the salvation of the world. No other organization can claim that. Those who aren’t Catholic, aren’t “in” the Church. They are outside.

I understand. That’s your choice

St Paul was a Catholic in the Catholic Church. What you believe is contrary to what Jesus taught, and Paul preached.


St Paul was a Catholic in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
So am I. Catholic is not only and exclusively in communion with the Pope


Well it isn’t appropriate to bash Luther I could see why as he and some of the other reformers did questionable things. It is a historical fact that later in his life Luther became rabidly anti-Semitic and referred to Jews as criminals and other hideous racist things that later inspired Hitler. He inspired the rabid hatred that was displayed by early Lutherans as they conducted violence against Catholics in Germany. He caused the Reformation leading millions from the Church. So it is wrong to bash him per se but he is not someone that we should emulate or look up to




St Paul corrected St Peter at one point, he didn’t start his own Church. Big difference.

Not to mention there are modern heresies among the Lutherans such as female ordination.

Thank you for reading

God Bless


Neither have I.

True, sad to say. And there are Anglicans that do, also. And there are Catholics that do, too; the Old Catholics.
When I was Lutheran , I was a member of a synod that didn’t.
I am now a member of the Anglican Province of America, and we don’t.
And I take it that you are in communion with the pope.
I am not responsible for Anglicans that do, just as you are not responsible for Catholics that do.


And the Catholics never committed a bit of violence?
Please, the historical record regarding violence does not smile on Catholics or Lutherans.
Luther’s anti-Judaism is matched by the anti-Judaism of some Catholics. It was opposed in that era by allies of Luther and other Catholics.

The issue is not about either of these, But about doctrine.


If you follow Martin Luther than you have.

God Bless

Thank you for reading.


Then may I ask what particular issue is holding you back from letting go of Martin Luther and converting home to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

p.s. Any ‘Catholic’ that does so is a heretic. There are no female Priests in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

God Bless

Thank you for reading.


I agree.

16 Characters

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