Luther-Bashing is Anti-Catholic


Not sure what you’re trying to do here.

I was just trying to provide a little clarity on the use of “Social Popularity” being used by @StarMapp.

And modern scholarship is more complicated than that. Scholars currently view Luther as a man of his times with his own afflictions. Things like “heroic/evil reformer” and “honest theologian” are honorifics and would thus be excluded from objective academic discussion.


If the person dies first (as Luther did), there is no further ability to upbraid the person, so the excommunication ends. Thus my statement stands. :slight_smile:


Yeah. That’s interesting.


Well, not all of CAF. There are some Catholics who are following the lead of Catholic hierarchy regarding Luther.


For the most part, what “I’ve tried to do here” is sit back and listen. I rarely comment, but watching Jon doing “here I stand” by himself, well… he needs to know he’s not alone. There is a fair amount of obvious Luther-bashing going on, the quote from “StarMapp” I commented on was a pure example.

In regard to scholarship, you make a great point about it being complicated. However, I am capable of defending my assertion, that there is a noticeable shift in Catholic Luther scholarship as I’ve described it. It’s not my theory. There have been a number of studies that document it. I can recommend some sources if you are interested.


I wasn’t referring to “the most part”. I was referring to this specific post where you responded to my suggestion of a better word describing “social popularity”.

I’m sure he appreciates it. But I doubt he needs your help.

And fair reminder to all; this is a Catholic “house” you’re visiting. If the pro-Catholic bias becomes too much to bear, the “exit” is located on the top right for most internet browsers.

I wasn’t aware that “Catholic attitudes on Luther over time” is something that has been academically studied.

Just for novelty sake, I’d like to see them.


I see no contradiction. One Holy Catholic Apostolic. Pretty clear

Oh, clearly the Roman see had and has primacy among the patriarchs.
But primacy was not and is not supremacy. Primacy is not universal jurisdiction, according to the other patriarchs.


Luther was a heretic. That fact cannot be changed.


Yeah, what non-Catholics and Catholics mean by “supremacy” usually isn’t the same thing in my experience.

So how about that arbiter role Irenaeus identifes in the 2nd century? Made up? Because that relates intimately with jurisdiction.


Yes. You’ve made clear in the past your disdain for ecumenical dialogue, a rather antiCatholic approach, yet here you are in the nonCatholic forum inviting nonCatholics off the forum as if you had a say who does and doesn’t post.
I’m sure James doesn’t need your help in that decision.


Got it. According to the Catholic Church he was a heretic.


Catholic Church…which possesses the fullness of the truth.


Oh cease with the ad hominems, Jon. I just enjoy vigorous debate and I don’t care at all if someone’s feelings get hurt because they should be able to separate themselves from their ideas in the very first place.

And while you naturally assume a non-Catholic sub-forum of a Catholic website is targeted for ecumenism, I think it’s also an opportunity for lively debate.

Judging by many of the threads I see, I’m at least partially right. :man_shrugging:

Now could you please offer your thoughts on Rome’s supposed role as arbiter if she has no universal jurisdiction?


Sure. Here are a few English sources to start with.

Richard Stauffer, Luther As Seen By Catholics, (Virginia: John Knox Press, 1967)

Gregory Sobolewski, Martin Luther Roman Catholic Prophet (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2001)

I’m fond of Stauffer’s book. I have a lot of other references, but Stauffer is really a good place to start. Sobolewski is a more current treatment, basically echoing the same material presented by Stauffer back in the late 1960’s.

Simply stated, the paradigm that’s generally accepted is that Catholic historian Joseph Lortz was the turning point in Catholic Luther scholarship. Here’s an interesting observation from Pope Benedict (while he was still a Cardinal)-

Question: Where does Luther scholarship stand today? Have there been any attempts to research Luther’s theology, beyond existing historical investigations?

Cardinal Ratzinger: Nobody can answer this question in a few sentences. Besides, it would require a special kind of knowledge which I do not possess. It might be helpful,however, briefly to mention a few names which represent the various stages and trends of Catholic Luther scholarship. At the beginning of the century we have the decidedly polemical work by the Dominican H. Denifle. He was responsible for placing Luther in the context of the Scholastic tradition, which Denifle knew better than anybody else because of his intimate knowledge of the manuscript materials. He is followed by the much more conciliatory Jesuit, Grisar, who, to be sure, encountered various criticisms because of the psychological patterns in which he sought to explain the problem of Luther. J. Lortz from Luxembourg became the father of modern Catholic Luther scholarship. He is still considered the turning-point in the struggle for an historically truthful and theologically adequate image of Luther. Against the background of the theological movement between the two world wars, Lortz could develop new ways of questioning which, subsequently, would lead to a new assessment of Luther.


Yes and no, Jon. Catholic historian (and Trent expert) Hubert Jedin is purported to have said something like, Luther was never officially condemned by name at Trent, so Catholics have no official judgment on Luther binding them. See, Atkinson, p.30.

My Jedin notes are alluding me at the moment, i’m also on my way out the door.


Don’t be reticent! Throw yourself into the fray!


It isn’t an ad hominem. You yourself stated it.
On this forum.


Since you don’t see it, I’ll block quote it so you can’t miss it.

Objectively - if that’s not an ad hominem, then you simply don’t know what they are. I can even tell you the type of ad hominem it is, if you’d like.

But, again, I don’t particularly care. What I DO care about…

So if Rome lacks universal jurisdiction, how does Irenaeus’ identification of Rome as Arbiter work? Was he wrong? Writing non-sense?

Was it a lie meant to undermine a small offshoot of Anglicanism that would organize 1800 years later?



Objectively, repeating what you said about yourself is not ad hominem.

Why does an arbiter have to necessarily have universal jurisdiction?
Irenaeus can be right and not be defending a later position.

More proof that it wasn’t ad hominem.


What opinions, what interpretations?

I quoted scripture, and gave the context, AND the Greek word emphasized & highlighted in that scripture, and the definition of that Greek word from the Greek lectionary… Jesus validates Peter is the greatest and leader among THEM, (the apostles) ergo the Church as well. Their argument is over.

The context says, If I didn’t believe that, I would be following Satan NOT Jesus.

That’s your choice. You are continuing to argue a point that Jesus solved.

As I’ve said before, I disagree.

It can’t be argued with any success, to negate what Jesus already solved with the apostle’s argument over who is greatest among THEM. Jesus said it is Peter. Argument over. Anyone who keeps that argument going after Jesus settled it, Jesus identifies who the cause of that ongoing argument is by such a person. It’s Satan.

Help - Why stay Catholic vs. moving to Eastern Orthodoxy?
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit