Saturday, March 16, 2019

Rome's Defender says, "I'm not going to follow that Nazi, Martin Luther"

Here's a brief interaction on a difficult subject, Martin Luther's antisemitism. I do not condone Luther's treatises against the Jewish people, nor should anyone. However, if your own church is guilty of harsh rhetoric against a particular group of people... well... best not bring up Luther's antisemitism as proof you belong to the right church!

This conversation was slightly edited (formatting, not Luther-related content). The original can be found beginning here.






When I look at Martin Luther or any religion in comparison, Lets look at that whole package.

On the Jews and Their Lies -- By Martin Luther

In the treatise, he argues that Jewish synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes burned, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[2] afforded no legal protection,[3] and "these poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[4] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[W]e are at fault in not slaying them".[5]


1500 years not a peep, this guy invents Faith Alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the...and_Their_Lies



Jesus Christ gave clear indication of Justification.

Matthew 12

37“For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”


Why wasn't the Jesus word on the matter good enough on justification and salvation?

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

I'm not going to follow that Nazi, Martin Luther.
Originally posted by utilyan View Post
When I look at Martin Luther or any religion in comparison, Lets look at that whole package.

On the Jews and Their Lies -- By Martin Luther

In the treatise, he argues that Jewish synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes burned, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[2] afforded no legal protection,[3] and "these poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[4] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[W]e are at fault in not slaying them".[5]

I'm not going to follow that Nazi, Martin Luther.
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.
Originally posted by James Swan View Post

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'm sure there are plenty of horrible examples of Catholic leadership, I'm not accepting any change in theology they might insist.

In short two wrongs don't make a right. A Nazi pushing his theory of "FAITH ALONE" simply not going to fly with me.

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
I'm sure there are plenty of horrible examples of Catholic leadership, I'm not accepting any change in theology they might insist.

In short two wrongs don't make a right. A Nazi pushing his theory of "FAITH ALONE" simply not going to fly with me.
The point of what I posted was to demonstrate that if Luther's harsh attitude towards the Jews is a proof that Luther's theology is invalid, then similarly, Rome's theology is invalid in their hatred of Lutherans as presented in Decet Romanum. This is according to the standard you have set: hatred as a defining standard of truth, as part of your, "whole package."

Here's how I like to present my worldview. If an argument I'm making also works against my own position, it's not a valid argument. Similarly, go ahead and make arguments for Rome, defend your worldview. But always ask yourself: does the argument or point i'm making apply to my own position? If it does, you've refuted yourself.
Originally posted by James Swan View Post

The point of what I posted was to demonstrate that if Luther's harsh attitude towards the Jews is a proof that Luther's theology is invalid, then similarly, Rome's theology is invalid in their hatred of Lutherans as presented in Decet Romanum. This is according to the standard you have set: hatred as a defining standard of truth, as part of your, "whole package."

Here's how I like to present my worldview. If an argument I'm making also works against my own position, it's not a valid argument. Similarly, go ahead and make arguments for Rome, defend your worldview. But always ask yourself: does the argument or point i'm making apply to my own position? If it does, you've refuted yourself.
"Luther's harsh attitude towards the Jews is a proof that Luther's theology is invalid,"

First it absolutely is Invalid because he calls it his theology. Hate the Jews as he does, embrace the entire theology of faith alone.

Let me give you some ground as there is "Luther's theology" vs "Lutheran theology".




"The point of what I posted was to demonstrate that if Luther's harsh attitude towards the Jews is a proof that Luther's theology is invalid, then similarly, Rome's theology is invalid in their hatred of Lutherans as presented in Decet Romanum."

I agree if ROME is putting out NEW theology. And in a case they TRIED it would be a internal war. I don't cease to be catholic. I don't give up and abandon the family.

"If an argument I'm making also works against my own position, it's not a valid argument."

I totally agree. Which is why this works just fine. Nothing new is being claimed.

The entire Church can decide to murder all they can tomorrow. And you can have a papal bull 50 feet long saying they are going to do it. I can be labelled heretic.

None of those things change church teaching. The clergy are not gods over laity. And the smallest unit of christian will always be the Saint himself.


When you know the truth and the guy in front of you is a flat out liar, how may opinions need to be made to convince you that the TRUTH is not so? He can have all the opinions, you already know the truth.


Originally posted by utilyan View Post

When you know the truth and the guy in front of you is a flat out liar, how may opinions need to be made to convince you that the TRUTH is not so? He can have all the opinions, you already know the truth.
I suspect you may not be understanding me. Perhaps I was not clear. Let me try again.

You can argue Luther was negatively this or that, and you can claim the Roman church is positively this or that. However, if the negative thing you're arguing against Luther also applies to your own position, it's not a valid argument. It's the same sort of thing going on now in the United States. The Democrats are saying this or that person is a "racist," yet it's a double standard because the Democratic party is also making racist statements.

The Roman church made similar awful statements against a group of people (The "Lutherans"). Therefore: Luther and the Roman church are BOTH guilty of racist hate filled statements against people they did not like and wanted to suppress. Should we take this further and bringiup Rome's history against the Jews at this point?

"The early Roman pontiffs of the sixteenth century had Jewish physicians and were favorable to the Jews and the Maranos of their states. Time soon came, however, when the Sephardic Jews of Italy fared differently. As early as 1532, the accusation of child murder nearly entailed the extermination of the Jews of Rome. In 1555, Paul IV revived the ancient canons against the Jews which forbade them the practice of medicine, the pursuit of high commerce, and the ownership of real estate. He also consigned them to a Ghetto, and compelled them to wear a Jew badge. In 1569, Pius IV expelled all the Jews from the Pontifical States, except Rome and Ancona. Sixtus V (1585-1590) recalled them; but, soon after him, Clement VIII (1592-1605) banished them again partially, at the very moment when the Maranos of Italy lost their last place of refuge in Ferrara. Similar misfortunes befell the Jewish race in other states of Italy as the Spanish domination extended there: Naples banished the Jews in 1541; Genoa, in 1550; Milan, in 1597. Hence-forward, most Sephardic fugitives simply passed through Italy when on their way to the Turkish Empire." [source]
Go ahead and argue against Luther. That's fair. Your argument though that one of the reasons he's wrong, or whatever, because of his comments about the Jews works the other way as well: Rome is therefore wrong because her statements about the Lutherans and her actions toward the Jews.

It's offensive for you to refer to Luther as Nazi, particularly from a Roman perspective. Physician, heal thyself.








Luther wrote down his theology and it includes murdering Jews. You can have hundreds of popes even one today say they hate jews, That does not change Catholic theology.

IN TEACHING Luther says kill Jews. He wrote an entire book on it. He determines his own theology.


The Lutherans know. ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin...d_antisemitism

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, in an essay on Lutheran-Jewish relations, observed that "Over the years, Luther's anti-Jewish writings have continued to be reproduced in pamphlets and other works by neo-Nazi and antisemitic groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan."[95]

Nothing in Catholic church teaching says hate anyone. Evil Catholics exist. The teaching however does not teach to hate Jews.


Luther however is writing a book teaching to HATE JEWS -->The Nazis used Martin Luther's book, On the Jews and Their Lies (1543), to claim a moral righteousness for their ideology. Luther even went so far as to advocate the murder of those Jews who refused to convert to Christianity, writing that "we are at fault in not slaying them".[55]

If a catholic wrote a book it only is what it is that does not determine church teaching. Thats why we are not caught by inventions of false teaching as Luther caught plenty with his theology of Faith Alone.

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
Luther wrote down his theology and it includes murdering Jews.
This is false. Luther did not instruct anyone to murder Jews. Even in his harsh book, "On The Jews and Their Lies," Luther says, not to "harm their persons." See LW 47:274.

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
You can have hundreds of popes even one today say they hate jews, That does not change Catholic theology.
The Pope officially released "Decet Romanum" in 1521. The papacy said of the Lutherans: their 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." Had you lived in 1521, this is what the Papacy would have instructed faithful Roman Catholics to believe. That was official Roman Catholic teaching in 1521.

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
IN TEACHING Luther says kill Jews. He wrote an entire book on it. He determines his own theology.
Once again, this is false. Luther never said to "kill Jews."

True, Luther wrote against the Jews, but do you want to know Luther's opinion of his books? "I would have been quite content to see my books, one and all, remain in obscurity and go by the board.... My consolation is that, in time, my books will lie forgotten in the dust anyhow, especially if I (by God’s grace) have written anything good." (LW 34:283-284). If you want to know what the essence of Luther's "teaching" is, simply go get a copy of the Book of Concord. This is the confessional standard that embraced Luther's teaching, and carried it on to subsequent generations.

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
I'm not a millennial, so I don't rely on Wikipedia (even though that Wiki article refers to me at the bottom, LOL).

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, in an essay on Lutheran-Jewish relations, observed that "Over the years, Luther's anti-Jewish writings have continued to be reproduced in pamphlets and other works by neo-Nazi and antisemitic groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan."[95]
This is an invalid argument, but please, do provide some examples of this. You brought it up, so prove it.

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
Nothing in Catholic church teaching says hate anyone. Evil Catholics exist. The teaching however does not teach to hate Jews.
Except of course in 1521, when all the faithful Roman Catholics were instructed via an official bull from the Pope instructing them to, in essence, hate Lutherans.

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
Luther however is writing a book teaching to HATE JEWS -->
The Pope in 1521, instructed Roman Catholics to hate Lutherans,

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
The Nazis used Martin Luther's book, On the Jews and Their Lies (1543), to claim a moral righteousness for their ideology.
The Nazis picked and chose what they wanted from Luther. But by all means, instruct me here. Where exactly, or what is your proof, that the Nazis used Luther's treatise, "to claim a moral righteousness for their ideology"?

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
Luther even went so far as to advocate the murder of those Jews who refused to convert to Christianity, writing that "we are at fault in not slaying them".[55]
This is false. Luther never advocated murdering anyone who didn't convert. The quote you've cut-and-pasted "we are at fault for not slaying them" is being taken out of context, and I can prove it if need be.

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
If a catholic wrote a book it only is what it is that does not determine church teaching. Thats why we are not caught by inventions of false teaching as Luther caught plenty with his theology of Faith Alone.
In 1521 the Pope releases a official document instructing Roman Catholics to hate Lutherans. If you lived in 1521, this was the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

.



"We are at fault in not slaying them" --Martin Luther.


There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses, namely, that God has struck them with "madness and blindness and confusion of mind." So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite an their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property (as they daily pray and hope). Now tell me whether they do not have every reason to be the enemies of us accursed Goyim, to curse us and to strive for our final, complete, and eternal ruin! --Martin Luther ON JEWS AND THEIR LIES.



Furthermore, if they are pious Jews and not the whoring people, as the prophets call them, how does it happen that their piety is so concealed that God himself is not aware of it, and they are not aware of it either? For they have, as we said, prayed, cried, and suffered almost fifteen hundred years already, and yet God refuses to listen to them. We know from Scripture that God will hear the prayers or sighing of the righteous, as the Psalter says [Ps. 145:19]: "He fulfills the desire of all who fear him, he also hears their cry." And Psalm 34:17: "When the righteous cry for help, the Lord hears." As he promised in Psalm 50:15: "Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you." The same is found in many more verses of the Scripture. If it were not for these, who would or could pray? In brief, he says in the first commandment that he will be their God. Then, how do you explain that he will not listen to these Jews? They must assuredly be the base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth. If there were a single pious Jew among them who observed these, he would have to be heard; for God cannot let his saints pray in vain, as Scripture demonstrates by many examples. This is conclusive evidence that they cannot be pious Jews, but must be the multitude of the whoring and murderous people. --- Martin Luther ON JEWS and THEIR LIES.




Pope Bacon can declare we should hate and kill everyone in the world. That does not equate to Catholic Theology. That is HIS theology.


We can read Decet Romanum Pontificem

Papal Bull of Excommunication of Martin Luther and his followers

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10decet.htm



QUOTE IT. There is nothing in an excommunication that teaches brand new theology. Quote where it says Catholic teaching is now hate Lutherans.



Its amazing how out of the way folks will go to defend a Nazi teaching.

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
"We are at fault in not slaying them" --Martin Luther.
The actual place where these words from Luther occur is LW 47:267. Luther in context is bombastically arguing against the oppression of the Jews, saying rather that the Jews are oppressing the Germans! He presents the argument that it is they that are benefiting off German land, at the expense of the Germans. He further takes as true the the rumors that the Jews were killing German children and poisoning wells. "We are at fault in not slaying them" is part of a rhetorical argument in which Luther accepts the negative Jewish stereotypes of his day, then he attempts to present the case that despite these Jewish crimes, the Germans were gracious and kind to the Jews. Luther is not saying that the Germans should go out and kill the Jews. He's saying that if all the negative things are true about the Jews are true (as he previously stated, like killing children, poisoning wells, etc.), the Germans were at moral fault for allowing them to live. Rather, Germany has allowed them "to live freely in our midst despite all their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property. In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property..." This is a rhetorical descriptive argument. It is not a prescription to go out and kill Jews. .

Luther goes on to say a few pages later... not to "harm their persons":
And you, my dear gentlemen and friends who are pastors and preachers, I wish to remind very faithfully of your official duty, so that you too may warn your parishioners concerning their eternal harm, as you know how to do—namely, that they be on their guard against the Jews and avoid them so far as possible. They should not curse them or harm their persons, however. For the Jews have cursed and harmed themselves more than enough by cursing the Man Jesus of Nazareth, Mary’s son, which they unfortunately have been doing for over fourteen hundred years. Let the government deal with them in this respect, as I have suggested. But whether the government acts or not, let everyone at least be guided by his own conscience and form for himself a definition or image of a Jew. (LW 47:274)
Originally posted by utilyan View Post
Pope Bacon can declare we should hate and kill everyone in the world. That does not equate to Catholic Theology. That is HIS theology.
In 1521, Decet Romanum pontificem officially instructed Roman Catholics how to treat Lutherans. If you were alive in 1521, this would have been the declarations guiding the society you lived in. Would you REALLY have said, "I'm not going to follow your directive, Pope Bacon. It is not Roman theology?" How would you know it was not Roman theology?

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
We can read Decet Romanum Pontificem

Papal Bull of Excommunication of Martin Luther and his followers

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10decet.htm QUOTE IT. There is nothing in an excommunication that teaches brand new theology. Quote where it says Catholic teaching is now hate Lutherans.
It has been quoted to you. It was cited with the specific purpose of demonstrating your double standard. You cited Luther's calling for harsh treatment of the Jews, and I countered with Rome demanding harsh treatment of the Lutherans. You can't have it both ways: you can't accuse Luther of being a "Nazi" for what he wrote (see your post here) and then ignore that the Papacy called for the same sort of treatment of the Lutherans: 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.

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
Its amazing how out of the way folks will go to defend a Nazi teaching.
This is pure personal slander, but it does serve its purpose in demonstrating your double standard at best, and at worst indicates you have missed the thrust of the argument. Nowhere in this vast thing we call "cyberspace" will you find me "defending Nazi teaching." Rather, I've been critical of Luther's anti-Jewish comments for years.

Certainly Luther's comments about the Jews were terrible, but they are not the deciding factor in his theology. Good Roman Catholic scholarship typically interacts with Luther's theology rather than attacking Luther the person, because the story of Luther's negativity towards the Jews is really to tell the story of medieval Christianity and medieval society's negativity towards the Jews.

Previous to Luther there were atrocities like The Strasbourg massacre (1349). Those Jews agreeing to be baptized were spared being burned alive. Even after Luther, Pope Paul IV (1555-1559) was involved in some fairly serious Jewish persecution:

"In 1553 all copies of the Talmud found in Rome were burned in public. Pope Paul IV (1555-1559) ordered measures to be taken against the Jews, and twenty-four men and one woman were burned at the stake. On July 12, 1555, he issued a bull that renewed all the oppressive medieval legislation against the Jews, excluding them from professions, limiting their financial and commercial activities, forbidding them to own real estate, and humiliating them by obliging them to wear yellow hats" [Lewis W. Spitz, The Protestant Reformation (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1985), 357].

Owen Chadwick likewise documents this: "He forced every Jew to wear a yellow hat and live in a ghetto with only one exit... He caused to be published the first Index of prohibited books... Sixtus of Siena was sent to Cremona, where there was a great Hebrew school (for the destruction of the Talmud was ordered), and reported that he had burnt a store of 12,000 volumes... Under an Inquisition with extended powers, and a pope ready to suspect everyone, there was almost a reign of terror in the city. 'Even if my own father were a heretic,' said the Pope, 'I would gather the wood to burn him'" [Owen Chadwick, The Reformation (New York: Penguin Books, 1964), 271].

A cyber-acquaintance of mine stated something in passing on Luther's attitude toward the Jews that I find meaningful, not only to the Luther & the Jews dispute, but to many aspects of church history:

"Let's think about this: 500 years ago, someone demonstrates that his view of people different than himself sociologically or politically is pretty provincial and, if we can say it plainly, insulting. In every generation after him, because of his influence in general, every biographer of him points out the fault, decries it, and indicates we shouldn't be like him. All the people who follow this guy theologically and denominationally all repudiate his faulty views, and they confessionally reject these views. His 500 years of influence are thereafter gleaned for the best of his ideas and the worst are literally called out and rejected, and reasonably-healthy churches are thereafter grown."
Even though I'm not a Lutheran, I think this is the actual paradigm Lutheranism has followed. From my perspective, I use the same paradigm for church history, be it Chrysostom, Origen, Augustine, etc. I realize that the voices from the past often have sins and faults. The cliche is to chew the meat and spit out the bones. That's what I do with Luther- that's why I can read him, even while not being a Lutheran, and I can appreciate him.



Simply James you are absolutely correct in how you have misunderstood it. Neo-Donatism doesn't work and hypocrites are wrong. I 100% agree.

If you could split the hairs between Lutheran and Luther's theology, you could better understand my POV.

LUTHER's theology is flat out wrong.

Originally posted by utilyan View Post


Simply James you are absolutely correct in how you have misunderstood it. Neo-Donatism doesn't work and hypocrites are wrong. I 100% agree.

If you could split the hairs between Lutheran and Luther's theology, you could better understand my POV.

LUTHER's theology is flat out wrong.
Wow. Tilt. Game completely over.

22 comments:

Algo said...

James, I went a few laps with Utilyan last year. I almost asked him if he was a recent graduate of Art Sippo U. Now that I see that he has employed Art's classic "Nazi" language I am much more certain. I tried to get him to listen to the White vs Madrid Sola Scriptura debate, or at least look at the transcript in an effort to correct his extreme ignorance of the subject. About all that I could get from him was:
"For 500 Years people have claimed a FAKE RULE. They swear that rule is in the bible. SHOW IT THEN!".
And :
"BIBLE BELIEVERS know that rule is not in there. Non-believers made up that rule and try to pass themselves for bible believers.

They try to hide their FAKE RULE by telling us the bible is important and holy over and over which no one denies.

But show us that scripture states the bible is Final and ONLY authority."

Unknown said...

Luther a Nazi? More like antisemitism. Same antisemitism as the Office of the "Holy" Inquisition. The same unfortunate antisemitism of those times. Something from the 20th century: the ratlines where the Roman Catholic Church aided nazis to flee from Europe.

James Swan said...

Hi Algo: Thanks for the comments. To the best of knowledge, I've never interacted with "Utilyan" before. Yes, the similarities to our friend Dr. Art are similar. I wonder how he is? It's been a long time.

I had always wanted to try out the "oppress the Lutherans" argument on one of Rome's defenders bringing up the Luther/Nazi argument... to see what would happen. Now I know!

James Swan said...

Hi Unknown:

If you read more of my entries on Luther's antisemitism, you'll find that I've discussed the term "antisemitism" and its relation to Luther, arriving at yes, Luther's comments can be considered "antisemitic" if the term is defined a particular way.

I've never done any studies into Rome's influence or actions on WWII.

zipper778 said...

I have an example that would work for utilyan. Just look at Pope Pius IX who declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Papal Infallibility as dogmas. This man forced Jews to live in ghettos and even kidnapped a 6 year old Jewish boy (Edgardo Mortara). Here is a horrible Roman Catholic pope who introduced not one, but two new teachings into the Roman Catholic Church. I believe that fits utilyan's criteria.

Algo said...

James, I recently found this old Sippo Rant that should be in your "Quotable Sippo" series.
http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2005/01/dave-armstrong-now-desperately.html

James Swan said...

zipper778 said...
I have an example that would work for utilyan. Just look at Pope Pius IX who declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Papal Infallibility as dogmas. This man forced Jews to live in ghettos and even kidnapped a 6 year old Jewish boy (Edgardo Mortara). Here is a horrible Roman Catholic pope who introduced not one, but two new teachings into the Roman Catholic Church. I believe that fits utilyan's criteria.


I've not done any relevant studies on Pope Pius IX and the Jews. If you have any sources to recommend, please share.

James Swan said...

James, I recently found this old Sippo Rant that should be in your "Quotable Sippo" series.

The link does not appear to work. I took a few minutes to "Google" the good Doctor... it appears he's out of the Roman apologetics business and is writing fiction:

https://www.amazon.com/Sun-Koh-Heir-Atlantis-Arthur-Sippo/dp/1946183504

James Swan said...

never mind, I found it. Classic Sippo!

Anonymous said...

My challenge to people is: read Luther's "On the Jews and Their Lies" and tell me where he is wrong. Make a case. Something more than "anti-Semitism is bad so don't do that."

James Swan said...

Hello unknown.

Some years back I put together a study on Luther's writings about the Jews. There I went through On the Jews and Their Lies. Not all of that writing is violent rhetoric against the Jews. Much of it involves arguments based on the Scriptures. In that sense, the writing is not that much different than Luther's writings against the Papacy or the radicals.

Back in 2013, I put up a blog post (http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2013/05/luthers-alleged-anti-semitism.html) in which I commented on a writer defending Luther's comments against the Jews. The author insists that Luther "favored punishments [for the Jews] first to witness to the Holy Scriptures, for Jesus himself rebuked the Jews (AE 47: 277). Second, he intended these punishments to scare the Jews straight so that they might receive God’s blessings (AE 47: 267)." It's certainly one thing for the Scriptures to do this, quite another for a society to act on it. The strength of this article is placing Luther's comments in his theological and Biblical framework, a framework Luther was fluent in. The weakness, as I see it, is that the church and state were connected in such a way during the sixteenth-century that a theologian with political powers could have acted on Luther's suggestions. In God's providence, Luther's harsh statements were not acted on, which shows at least that Protestant princes simply did not put in to practice whatever came from his pen.

When Luther suggested violence against the Jews, he went too far. Some of his rhetoric was based on popular rumors. Suggesting violence against a group of people based on unfounded rumors is simply despicable.

zipper778 said...

James, it's been awhile since I have done any study if Pius IX, but this is motivating me to do so. Pius IX did in 1848 remove the Jewish Ghettos, but in 1850 he reinstalled them. If I find anything I'll let you know.

PeaceByJesus said...

The entire Church can decide to murder all they can tomorrow. And you can have a papal bull 50 feet long saying they are going to do it. I can be labelled heretic.

None of those things change church teaching. The clergy are not gods over laity. And the smallest unit of christian will always be the Saint himself.


This pertains to and reveals the specious and selective nature of what determines "church teaching."

First, in Scripture.what a person or entity really believes is not based upon mere profession, if at all, but on what they do and effect. "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:18) "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:20)

Thus when Rome manifestly considers Ted Kennedy Catholics to be members in life and in death, it is teaching the flock what canon law really means, including notorious public sinners being excluded from receiving ecclesiastical funerals. And in which judgment as to who this pertains begins with the local ordinary, not the laity. (Can. 1184 )

Secondly, what binding (requiring assent) church teaching consists of is not restricted to one magisterial class (so-called infallible teachings which require assent of faith) but also (mostly) multitudes non-infallible teachings of her "ordinary" magisterium (which require religious assent of will and intellect).

Granted, lacking any infallible list of all infallible teachings, then what magisterial level many teachings fall under (and thus what level of assent is required) can be subject to confusion and disagreement. Thus the exasperated response by an wannabe Catholic when faced with the difficulty of determining such:

Part 1 or 2

PeaceByJesus said...

Part 2

rrr1213: Boy. "No disrespect intended…and I mean that honestly…but my head spins trying to comprehend the various classifications of Catholic teaching and the respective degrees of certainty attached thereto. I suspect that the average Catholic doesn’t trouble himself with such questions, but as to those who do (and us poor Protestants who are trying to get a grip on Catholic teaching) it sounds like an almost impossible task."

The solution (before Francis at least) he was given was just obey everything:

"Well, the question pertained to theology. The Catholic faithful don’t need to know any of this stuff to be faithful Catholics, so you are confusing theology with praxis.

Praxis is quite simple for faithful Catholics: give your religious assent of intellect and will to Catholic doctrine, whether it is infallible or not. That’s what our Dogmatic Constitution on the Church demands, that’s what the Code of Canon Laws demand, and that is what the Catechism itself demands. Heb 13:17 teaches us to “obey your leaders and submit to them.” This submission is not contingent upon inerrancy or infallibility." - https://forums.catholic.com/t/catechism-infallible/55096/31

For the alternative can result in what as one poster wryly stated,

"The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left." - Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

Moreover, basic historical RC teaching is that “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 papal teaching is that RCs are,

"to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)

Note that Encyclicals are binding teaching,

Part 2 of 3

PeaceByJesus said...

Part 3

And thus when Rome ex cathedra consigns all heretics, schismatics etc. to the lake of fire unless they submit to the pope, and when obedience to the pope and conciliar teaching requires the extermination of all Rome considers heretics by RC civil leaders or suffer the loss of their office, (Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3 ), 1215) then that is church teaching.

As is when a later council "clarifies" something as not meaning what it appears to mean (which is why RCs are not be ascertaining what church teaching is or means based upon their judgment, like the Protestants they condemn for doing so), or that the teaching was historically restricted.

And in regards to RC teaching on the Jews, then the Popes Against the Jews is to be invoked when RCs pile on Luther for the same, as is your series (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 , and this compilation, by the grace of the God of Truth.

PeaceByJesus said...

Algo said...

James, I went a few laps with Utilyan last year.But show us that scripture states the bible is Final and ONLY authority."


Both the demand for an actual statement and that Scripture is the only authority are sophistical polemical premises, for SS does not hold that actual statements are essential for providing doctrinal proof, but (as Westminster) holds that, "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture," And, "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation , are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means , may [not necessarily will] attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."

While as for authority, it also holds that "It belongeth to synods and councils... authoritatively determine" cases of controversy, as well as that civil magistrates are authoritative in their realm. But that "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." (Westminster Confession, CHAPTERS I, XXXI-XXIII).

As for evidence, it is abundantly evidenced that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.

For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation.
(Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; Psalm 102:18; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;

Moreover, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils claim to do. Thus the written word is the assured infallible substantive word of God.

And rather than an infallible magisterium being required to for writings to be established as being from God, a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") " even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 1828, etc.)

Algo said...

James, have you had a chance to listen to Turretinfan's recent debate with Wm. Albrecht on Romans 3:28? William challenges your work on Luther's use of "faith alone".

Algo said...

That debate can be found here: http://d1at8ppinvdju8.cloudfront.net/1/124/show_11245295_2019_03_30_19_05_22.mp3?cId=e60f5fee-7a6c-4ea9-a57e-a30040b437f0

James Swan said...

I heard a section of it, and I was in contact with Tfan, alerting him last Monday (April 1), in these exact words that:

"It looks to me the error is as follows: 'nur durch glauben' is in the Nuremburg Bible at Galatians 2:16. Hodge applied it to Romans 3:28 in the Nuremberg Bible (as well as many others). I (or whatever source I used) made a copyist error with 'allein durch den glauben.'

I plan on doing a post next week, going into greater detail. Too busy this week to do more looking at it.

Algo said...

Great, I'll look forward to that. Thanks again for all your hard work.

Don S said...

Wow! Once again, James, I am amazed by your patience. Incredible.

I wonder if I should start compiling a listing of Roman Catholic theologians who have outright accepted Luther's use of 'Faith Alone.' It seems it's only Rome's More-Catholic-than-the-Pope Internet Crusaders who continue to bash Luther’s addition of ‘alone’ as if it were a translation defect (intentionally made to support an extra-biblical heresy, of course, of course...).

They don't realize that their own scholars have abandoned such an absurd line. I just wrote a brief exegetical study on Romans 3, and I was expecting to find Roman Catholics admitting that Luther's view was 'one of many competing views that was just outside of orthodoxy' or something like that, but I was surprised to find that many just straight-up admit that both Luther's wording and understanding had historical precedent well within catholic orthodoxy. The Jesuit scholar Joseph A. Fitzmyer even goes out of his way to cite theologians all the way back to Origen (Augustine and Aquinas included!) familiar with 'Faith Alone' in an understanding very similar to Luther's (see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 1st Ed., New York, NY: Doubleday 1993, p.360-361).

And you already know about Pope Benedict's acknowledgement that "allein" is the proper way to translate 3:28. I always enjoy the response of Roman Catholics when they lose that leg to argue on. The plain text is on Luther's side, and even Rome has to admit it.

James Swan said...

Hi Don:

Interesting. Are you posting your "exegetical study" online?