Luther vs. Rome on the Jews

This post was deleted from Catholic Answers, and then the discussion was closed by a moderator. Note below, my quote was from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Today, 10:55 pm

TertiumQuid  Regular Member   Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 832 Religion: Reformed

Re: Luther and The Protestant's Dilemma Quote: Originally Posted by Topper17  Hi Jon, I respectfully disagree with your statement. As a matter of historical fact, Luther was FAR worse than his Catholic contemporaries, and therefore he DOES deserves greater criticism” I find the idea that "Luther was worse therefore we're OK" to be an argument of desperation. "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] Do any of you really think this sort of blatant hardship actually enforced on an entire group of people is acceptable in comparison to a treatise from Luther that none of Luther's supporters took seriously? If yes, well... that's sad.

Well, I guess I wasn't meant to get the last word. I made some other comments. These have yet to be deleted:

Nov 29, '14, 10:47 pm

TertiumQuid  Regular Member   Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 831 Religion: Reformed

Re: Luther and The Protestant's Dilemma Quote: Originally Posted by Eruvande  It really made sense to me, and more or less persuaded me that there is a case to be made about Luther's less than stellar attitudes and teachings. Hope that explains it  Eruvande, I think your OP made a thoughtful insight when you stated, "The bible is full of men who committed gross sins, but God still used them." I wouldn't give that cogent point away for the following reasons: 1. Those who argue that Luther’s work is somehow nullified because of his anti-Jewish writings are putting forth an impossible standard- it is to say that one must live a life of perfection in order for their work to have validity. Many examples can be drawn from the Scriptures to prove that God uses sinful people to proclaim his truth. I would have never imagined that Peter, who walked daily with the Lord Jesus Christ, would muddle the Gospel and face correction by Paul (Galatians 2:11-21), (and also he denied Christ before the crucifixion). Solomon “offered sacrifices and burned incense on the high places” (1 Kings 3:3) to appease the multiple “foreign women” he married (1 Kings 11). The most striking example is King David, whose legacy includes adultery and conspiracy to murder. Yet God used these men despite heinous sin. We could go through a number of people in the Old Testament as well. As I would stand against Peter’s denial, Solomon’s idolatry, David’s adultery and conspiracy to murder, so I would stand against Luther’s anti-Jewish writings. That a holy God chooses to use sinful men to accomplish his will is an example of his mysterious divine providence: all things work together for His glory. 2. Certainly Luther's comments about the Jews were terrible, but they are not the deciding factor in his theology. Good 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]. 3. I have friends who argue against Catholicism because of the crusades, pedophilia, a nun hitting someone in grammar school, or any number of sins committed by people who adhere to Catholicism. In my thinking, this is one of the worst ways to argue. In the same way, those Catholics who argue against Protestantism attempting to vilify Luther have no way to consistently argue for their position positively. That is, if the hierarchy of the Catholic church has done something wrong or sinful at any point in her past, then by their standard applied to Luther, the Catholic church is invalid... It works both ways.

Nov 30, '14, 11:58 pm

TertiumQuid  Regular Member   Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 831 Religion: Reformed

Re: Luther and The Protestant's Dilemma Quote: Originally Posted by JonNC  I think that the most disturbing part of Luther's anti-Jewish writings was that he already knew better. He wrote in "That Jesus Was Born a Jew" in 1523, I've done some reading into Luther's change in attitude, often documented as slowly changing in 1536-1537. While there were reasons for his change in attitude, I don't think they were good enough reasons for his change in attitude. 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 tochew 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. A good number of Catholic scholars do this as well: Lortz, Wicks, McSorley, Congar, Tavard, etc. I use the same paradigm for those directly in my own tradition- Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, etc. I recently had a discussion with someone from my church about the dangers of Christians who have less-conservative views on creation- she was arguing they should be avoided completely- I pointed out that this would include one of the best Reformed theologians of all time- B.B. Warfield.