Saturday, March 07, 2015

Responses to Free Republic on Catholic Answers and Luther's Jewish Anti-Jewish Statements


Over the years I've received a number of blog hits from a discussion forum entitled, "Free Republic." I've never been tempted to join. I participate in a few other discussion forums, and that's enough for me.  Here's a few responses for those of you who visit here and use my blog entries on Free Republic.


Discussion: FYI, Yes, I am a "valuable friend of Catholic Answers" (3/6/2015)
A few days ago I posted an email I received from Catholic Answers referring to me as a "valuable friend." This made it over to Free Republic. Someone states, "I went to the blog and couldn't quite figure out WHAT was what I fear for my sense of humor ... there's a lot of things I don't 'get' these days." Yes, that's right, you don't get it. In regard to the actual e-mail sent to me from Catholic Answers, the same person states, "There's no reason to not believe it's real ... if you search out a matter." Yes, the email is real. Someone else pointed out, " ...[T]here are no live links out of the email." I removed the live link that came with the e-mail. Another person states, "Evidently Catholic Answers bought a mailing list. I've also received some weird things from people who have bought a mailing list. I just ignore them." No, I don't think Catholic Answers did this. Rather, I have purchased their products in the past, so perhaps that's why I'm a "valuable friend," $$. I've often wondered what would happen if I became a Catholic Answers "Forum Supporter." I wonder if they would be as quick to suspend my account or charge me with an infraction. In the past, I've been chastised for using the alert system. Perhaps if I pay into Catholic Answers, I could actually contact the moderators without being suspended. Or perhaps I could start using the term "Roman." It might actually be worth a few bucks to see if I'm treated differently with a little $$ offered.


Discussion: Luther's Comments About the Jews vs. The Papal Bull "Decet Romanum" (3/6/2015)
The comments from this discussion are a bit more complicated, so I numbered them. In regard to the papal bull Decet Romanum Pontificem that excommunicated Luther, someone stated:

1. A careful reading of this document (as well as the one by Pope Leo that preceded it 60 days before) makes it clear that the sanctions and punishments it contains were not directed at the average person that followed Luther in his heresy, but to those in positions of power and influence that were abetting Luther's cause. It talks about taking away their special privileges and all that went with them, including wealth and positions of influence--something your average Lutheran (or Catholic) of the time did not possess. We're talking here about clerics, princes and other influential people that had jumped on Luther's bandwagon--often because it gave them a chance to enrich themselves by confiscating the land and property of the Church. It also talked about forfeiting these often hereditary rights to their descendent's--a common interdict of the time placed upon the landed and wealthy. In other words, this document can in no way be read as a blanket interdict of all Lutherans of all times. The same goes for the anathemas of the Council of Trent. They were aimed at Catholics of the time who had apostatized from the Catholic Faith-- not at Lutherans sitting in their pews in 2015.

There are good points in this comment. Preserved Smith pointed out long ago that the original version of Decet Romanum "banned not only Luther but Hutten, Pirkheimer, and Spengler, and denounced the Elector Frederic" and then was modified and thus "confined itself to excommunicating the heresiarch" (cf. Boehmer. p. 144-145).   Martin Marty says that clergy coming under the judgment of this bull would now have to "pay taxes, serve in the military, and ordinarily lose housing and subsidy." So there is indeed an emphasis on those in authority. There were in fact persecutions of those convicted as early Lutheran leaders. Decet Romanum was a precursor to the Edict of Worms that Walther describes as "every Lutheran was declared 'in season'." Walther mentions also that in 1521 Duke George beheaded a bookseller for selling Lutheran books.  All this admitted, if the thrust of the comments above is that my comparison of Luther's harsh book against the Jews and that put forth by Decet Romanum isn't an example of a double standard from Rome's defenders, I would disagree. Certainly Luther's scope is  wider, but the intent is the same: to severely persecute a particular group of people. To my knowledge, the bookseller about to be beheaded by Duke George didn't shout out, "You've misread official documents- I'm not a Lutheran leader!"

2. There is a simple test for antisemitism, which I present. Luther completely failed it, spending his last time on earth conspiring and plotting as to how he could physically harm Jews (robbery, rape, and murder). He was distressed when people gave sanctuary to the Jewish refugees, just like the Nazis who succeeded him.

I don't recall Luther advising people to "rape" the Jews, nor did he spend his days plotting how to rob and murder them, so let's not make Luther worse than he was. There has been a significant debate as to whether or not Luther qualifies as an antisemite. Some defenders of Luther argue (quite correctly) that Luther was born into a society that was anti-Judaic, but it was not the current anti-Judaic type of society that bases it racism on biological factors. Luther had no objections to integrating converted Jews into Christian society. He had nothing against Jews as “Jews.” He had something against their religion because he believed it denied and blasphemed Christ. I've noticed a shift in Luther scholarship here, even with some of those who earlier advocated this view. Frankly, I don't think Luther qualifies as an "antisemite" if the term is used in its historical sense (see my comments here). If the term "antisemite" is used in a broader sense rather than a historical sense, yes, Luther was an antisemite- but I think the broader sense of the term is the result of a change in the meaning of the term. 


3. Before launching into a refutation of "Rome's cyber defenders that think the Third Reich began with Luther", an example of the "number" of such Cyber defender or even such a cyber defense would be in order, no? I clicked though your link in the clause "Rome's cyber defenders that think the Third Reich began with Luther" expecting to find, well, an example of one of "Rome's cyber defenders" who "think the Third Reich began with Luther" and instead I found an excellent blog post by a Lutheran, about a fascinating book by Lutheran writer Uwe Siemon-Netto... p.s. "Topper17" who is a member of the Catholic answers forum may indeed be one of Rome's cyber defenders, but his argument has nothing to do with the Holocaust. His point is that Luther's views were worse thatn his contemporaries. He doesn't prove his point because he only cites Luther and not his contemporaries but either way, it doesn't move the "number" north of ZERO. .

This comment was directed toward my "Rome's cyber defenders that think the Third Reich began with Luther" statement. This was intended to be a general statement of what I've dealt with over the years, but certainly specific examples can be brought forth- even in the very discussion that this blog entry was based on: "With the errors and the historical traits of Luther the significance was not merely that he was incontinent and foul-mouthed, but that he was the first to preach what he practised. Peter Weiner, who was a master at Stowe and a refugee from Germany, is not a Catholic and in his From Luther to Niemöller “traces German Nazism back to Luther and the Lutheran reformation.”" That's verbatim from a defender of Rome on the Catholic Answers forum in the very dicussion in question (my response is here).

In regard to Topper17, in an earlier discussion on another forum (CARM 01/03/12) he stated,
As an honest Lutheran Scholar, Hillerbrand is intellectually and morally required to acknowledge the connection between Luther’s “teachings” and the beliefs of (and “practices”) of Nazi Germany. There are those who would have us believe that Luther was actually an Old Testament Prophet, AND that OTPs always taught “correctly”, AND that we should follow and obey the teachings of the OTPs. Rather than be hypocrites, those christians should implement Luther’s teachings on the Jews as closely as they can, KNOWING that their Prophet’s recommendations were directly from God.
I could produce similar comments from this person such as,
History, Real History, has no choice but to admit to the role that Luther’s “recommendations” had in the Holocaust. As a result, the various and competing and conflicting Lutheran Churches, post WWII, had no choice but to come to grips with Luther’s ugly recommendations. They have officially apologized and attempted to distance themselves from those horrific recommendations in “On the Jews and Their Lies”. (CARM 06/13/11)

So, to my friends and foes on the Free Republic site... thanks for visiting, and thanks for your comments.

Sincerely,

              "A Valuable Friend of Catholic Answers"

9 comments:

PeaceByJesus said...

Luther had no objections to integrating converted Jews into Christian society. He had nothing against Jews as “Jews.” He had something against their religion because he believed it denied and blasphemed Christ.

And truth be told, but treatment no excused, if the charges of Luther and Cath contemporaries against the character and actions of Jews at that time were true, then they were not making themselves very easy to love that that time.

In the light of which Paul himself stated, Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. (1 Thessalonians 2:16)

That Luther's words were expressions of antijudaism than antisemitism is a point I (daniel1212) have made over at FR, but there are always some unreasonable RCs, and who seem to imagine we follow Luther like a cult leader (if so, we would be as Catholic as he was). And thus by ranting on Luther as an adulterer, fornicator (broken vows) and or rank antisemite then our faith will be seriously impugned.

Which ignorance i have pointed out to them, and that it is RCs who are to told,

"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

And which, unlike Scripture, can mean (among other examples) exterminating all heretics in one era and giving them the "high five" in another.

And as regards the treatment of Jews, then from this blog i supply,

In The Popes Against the Jews : The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, historian David Kertzer notes,

“the legislation enacted in the 1930s by the Nazis in their Nuremberg Laws and by the Italian Fascists with their racial laws—which stripped the Jews of their rights as citizens—was modeled on measures that the [Roman Catholic] Church itself had enforced for as long as it was in a position to do so” (9).

See more in part 5 of a series (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6

Also here and here .

Enough guilt to go around, from Jews to Catholics to Christians.

Apollo5600 said...

Hello! I'm a Freeper reporting in! Free Republic is a lot like getting a jail term. It's prison rules when it comes to religious debate. If you see a guy walking over to you and he seems to be hiding something in his right hand, it's probably a shiv.

PeaceByJesus said...

Personal attacks are disallowed in the Religion Forum, as is making the issue to be about the poster (though some degree is allowed).

The rules are quite basic, and mods have been quite fair and judicious in their role, while the software enables easier-to-see postings, with no character limit, and to ping as many as want to, and to see all your posts.

Plus you can just copy and post everything in html if you want.

Better software than CARM and similar i think.

RCs have often whined when reproved, but the latter is mainly due to RCs having constantly used it as a Cath info and apologetics service. Yet which has usually resulted in the specious nature of their CA-type apologetics being exposed. By God's grace.

Yet another RC shows up occasionally, resulting in have to do so again

PeaceByJesus said...

Hey, i did not know http://tquid.sharpens.org was now defunct. I had often linked to it, including http://tquid.sharpens.org/luther_Jews.htm, and now its gone.

Just like http://members.aol.com/jasonte and Eric Svendson's Ntrmin.org.

And a while ago www.aomin.org changed their site so that links to many vintage pages no longer work?

Why is this? Would your notable RC counterparts do this? This is war.

Free web hosting, with no ads, for evangelical sites is available. Thanks be to God.

Hope you saved your material at least. It seems http://members.aol.com/jasonte Ntrmin.org. is only partly available at https://web.archive.org, but perhaps they have all of http://tquid.sharpens.org

James Swan said...

I had to shut down the tquid site, because I couldn't justify the cost. It was originally set up to host the Iron Sharpens Iron show, but since that went defunct, it really was not worth the $$.

On my sidebar, I've linked to Internet Archive versions of the links you mentioned.

If there are free websites without ads, I'm open to suggestions.

PeaceByJesus said...

If there are free websites without ads, I'm open to suggestions.

Nothing fancy, but http://witnesstoday.org/

PeaceByJesus said...

Maybe you want to change the link at your Luther and the Canon of Scripture page to Luther's View of the Canon of Scripture to

http://web.archive.org/web/20140706180004/http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm

What assurance do we have that this web.archive page will remain?

Could i make a web page of it and host it, all atrrbuted to you?

James Swan said...

PeaceByJesus said..
Maybe you want to change the link at your Luther and the Canon of Scripture page to Luther's View of the Canon of Scripture to http://web.archive.org/web/20140706180004/http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm
What assurance do we have that this web.archive page will remain? Could i make a web page of it and host it, all atrrbuted to you?


I have back up copies of everything.

That's kind of you to offer to make the page. That article in-particular actually needs some editing (nothing major, but a lot of tedious details), so I probably should be the one to put it together.

PeaceByJesus said...

I have back up copies of everything.

Very good. Lacking a a flash drive and printer, Jeremiah used Baruch after Jehudi had read three or four leaves of his warnings and cast it into the fire. (Jeremiah 36:23)

The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it. (Psalms 68:11)

That's kind of you to offer to make the page. That article in-particular actually needs some editing (nothing major, but a lot of tedious details), so I probably should be the one to put it together

Fine. I just use OpenOffice (or LibreOffice) and save it as a web page.