Showing posts with label Luther and the Jews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Luther and the Jews. Show all posts

Monday, April 20, 2026

Bad Roman Catholic Arguments: Martin Luther's Statements on the Jews

Here's an excerpt from a defender of Roman Catholicism:

[Luther] was a clown. Here’s one for ya, On the Jews and Their Lies” (original German: Von den Juden und ihren Lügen) is a 65,000-word treatise written by Martin Luther in 1543, three years before his death. It is widely recognized as one of Luther’s most virulently antisemitic works, containing harsh theological polemics against Judaism, accusations of blasphemy and “lies,” and concrete recommendations for severe measures against Jewish communities in German territories.

Rome's defenders bring up Martin Luther's harsh writing against the Jews to discredit him entirely. They aim to demonstrate what he wrote was so morally bad, everything else he wrote was equally as bad. Why do they use this argument? Is it because Roman Catholicism has a spotless record of defending the Jewish people? Are they the watchdog of religious intolerance? No. 

1. Sixteenth century Roman Catholicism wrote harshly against the Jews, and these writings had immediate and dire consequences.  

2. Martin Luther's anti-Jewish writings were largely ignored by his associates, other Reformers, and political authorities. Roman Catholic recommendations were not ignored. They were implemented into society, causing harsh results: including the burning of synagogues, the destruction of Jewish books, intense economic hardship, banishment, and public execution.  

This Beggars All entry was also provoked by the overview from these two reputable Reformation sources: 

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. The ghetto system spread throughout the Catholic half of Europe (Lewis W. Spitz, The Protestant Reformation (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1985), p. 357).

[Pope Paul IV] 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… It caused a great burning of books throughout Italy... Ay Venice more than 10,000 books were burned on the Saturday before Palm Sunday.  Sixtus of Siena [a converted Jew that became a Dominican] 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), p. 271). 

Sixteenth Century Roman Catholicism Written Attacks on the Jews 

1555: Cum Nimis Absurdum (Pope Paul IV)

Since it is completely senseless and inappropriate to be in a situation where Christian piety allows the Jews (whose guilt, all of their own doing, has condemned them to eternal slavery) access to our society and even to live among us; indeed, they are without gratitude to Christians, as, instead of thanks for gracious treatment, they return invective, and among themselves, instead of the slavery, which they deserve... (link)

Original text: Cum nimis absurdum et inconveniens existat ut iudaei, quos propria culpa perpetuae servituti submisit, sub praetextu quod pietas christiana illos receptet et eorum cohabitationem sustineat, christianis adeo sint ingrati, ut, eis pro gratia, contumelian reddant, et in eos, pro servitute, quam illis debent, dominatum vendicare procurent (link).

Furthermore, in each and every state, territory and domain in which they are living, they will have only one synagogue, in its customary location, and they will construct no other new ones, nor can they own buildings. Furthermore, all of their synagogues, besides the one allowed, are to be destroyed and demolished. And the properties, which they currently own, they must sell to Christians within a period of time to be determined by the magistrates themselves (link).

Original text: Et in singulis civitatibus, terris et locis in quibus habitaverint, unicam tantum synagogam in loco solito habeant, nec aliam de novo construere, aut bona immobilia possidere possint. Quinimmo omnes eorum synagogas, praeter unam tantum, demoliri et devastare. Ac bona immobilia, qua ad praesens possident, infra tempus eis per ipsos magistratus praesignandum, christianis vendere (link). 

Moreover, concerning the matter that Jews should be recognizable everywhere: [to this end] men must wear a hat, women, indeed, some other evident sign, yellow in color, that must not be concealed or covered by any means, and must be tightly affixed [sewn]; and furthermore, they can not be absolved or excused from the obligation to wear the hat or other emblem of this type to any extent whatever and under any pretext whatsoever of their rank or prominence or of their ability to tolerate [this] adversity, either by a chamberlain of the Church, clerics of an Apostolic court, or their superiors, or by legates of the Holy See or their immediate subordinates (link).

Original text: Et ad hoc ut pro iudaeis ubique dignoscantur, masculi biretum, foeminae vero aliud signum patens, ita ut nullo modo celari aut abscondi possint, glauci coloris, palam deferre teneantur et adstricti sint; nec super non delatione bireti aut alterius signi huiusmodi, praetextu cuiusvis eorum gradus vel priaeminentiae seu toierantiae excusari, aut per eiusdem Ecclesiae camerarium vel Camerae Apostolicae clericos, seu alias illi praesidentes personas, aut Sedis Apostolicae legatos vel eorum vicelegatos quovis modo dispensari aut absolvi possint (link).

Also, they may not have nurses or maids or any other Christian domestic or service by Christian women in wet-nursing or feeding their children (link).

Original text: Nutrices quoque seu ancillas aut alias utriusque sexus servientes christianos habere, vel eorum infantes per mulieres christianas lactari aut nutriri facere (link).  

And they may not presume in any way to play, eat or fraternize with Christians (link).

Original Text: Seu cum ipsis christianis ludere aut comedere vel familiaritatem seu conversationem habere nullatenus praesumant (link). 

And those among them who are physicians, even if summoned and inquired after, cannot attend or take part in the care of Christians (link).

Original text: Et qui ex eis medici fuerint, etiam vocati et rogati, ad curam christianorum accedere aut illi interesse nequeant (link). 

And they are not to be addressed as superiors [even] by poor Christians (link).

Original text: Nec se a pauperibus christianis dominos vocari patiantur (link). 

And, should they, in any manner whatsoever, be deficient in the foregoing, it would be treated as a crime: in Rome, by us or by our clergy, or by others authorized by us, and in the aforementioned states, territories and domains by their respective magistrates, just as if they were rebels and criminals by the jurisdiction in which the offense takes place, they would be accused by all Christian people, by us and by our clergy, and could be punished at the discretion of the proper authorities and judges (Link).

Original text:  Et si circa praemissa in aliquo quomodolibet defecerint, iuxta qualitatem deiicti, in Urbe per nos seu vicarium nostrum, aut alios a nobis deputandos, ac in civitatibus, terris et iocis praedictis per eosdem magistratus, etiam tamquam rebelles et criminis lesae maiestatis rei, ac toto populo christiano diffidati,. nostro et ipsorum vicarii, ac deputandorum et magistratuum arbitrio puniri possint (link). 

When Pope Paul IV cancelled the protection of the Jews, one of the most severe results was the public execution of twenty-five Jews (The Ancona Auto-da-Fé of 1556):

One of the most harrowing episodes unfolded in Ancona, where a group of Portuguese marranos, including the notable physician Amato Lusitano, had found shelter under papal assurances of protection. Paul IV abruptly rescinded these protections, and in 1556, twenty-four marranos, including one woman, were burned alive in a brutal auto-da-fé (a public Inquisition execution) in the city square, while others were imprisoned. One prisoner took his own life in jail, twenty-seven were sent as galley slaves to Malta, and thirty managed to escape by bribing officials. A few found refuge in Pesaro under the protection of the Duke of Urbino, including Lusitano, who later fled to Salonika, where he died during a plague outbreak (link). 

1593: Caeca et Obdurata (Pope Clement VIII)

In the first year of his pontificate, [Pope Paul IV] not only renewed, but also abrogated, several indults and privileges by virtue of which the Jews protected themselves, and restored the same constitution of Paul's predecessor against them, and commanded that it be firmly observed; and finally, by other letters of his, he ordered them to be exiled for ever from all cities, lands, and places of temporal ecclesiastical jurisdiction, except the city of Rome and Ancona, as is more fully contained in their letters (Bullarum diplomatum et privilegiorum santorum romanorum pontificum 10:23).

Original text: ...pontificatus sui anno primo, non solum innovavit, sed etiam complura indulta et privilegia, quorum obtentu Iudaei se tuebantur, abrogando, eandem Pauli praedecessoris constitutionem adversus illa restituit ac firmiter observari praecipit; ac demum per alias suas litteras eos ab omnibus ditionis temporalis ecclesiasticae civitatibus, terris et locis, urbe Roma et Ancona exceptis, perpetuo exulare iussit, prout in eorum litteris latius continetur  (Bullarum diplomatum et privilegiorum santorum romanorum pontificum 10:23). 

[The Jews] ...have finally progressed to the point that, contrary to divine, natural, and human laws, by large and heavy interest rates of money, which they demand especially from the poor and needy, by illicit monopolies and usurious agreements, by frauds, deceits in contracting, and by fallacies, they have miserably exhausted, defrauded, and robbed many citizens and inhabitants of the temporal ecclesiastical jurisdiction where they reside, and have reduced especially men of small fortune, especially the rustics and simpletons, not only to extreme poverty and beggary, but almost to servitude; moreover, they have committed many and indeed graver crimes and atrocities themselves, and have most willingly rendered their assistance and whatever assistance they could to every lost and most wicked person committing crimes (Bullarum diplomatum et privilegiorum santorum romanorum pontificum 10:23). 

Original text:  Quibus postmodum, contra piam eorumdem praedecessorum mentem et intentionem, prave abutentes, eo tandem sunt progressi, ut adversus divinas, naturales humanasque leges, magnis et gravibus usuris pecuniarum, quas praesertim a pauperibus et egenis exigunt, monopoliis illicitis et foeneraticiis pactis, fraudibus, dolis in contrahendo, ac fallaciis, plurimos cives et incolas ditionis temporalis ecclesiasticae, ubi commorantur, misere exhauserint, circumvenerint, bonis spoliaverint, ac tenuis potissimum fortunae homines, praesertim rusticos et simplices, non solum ad extremam inopiam et mendicitatem, sed propemodum in servitutem redegerint; multa praeterea et quidem graviora scelera et flagitia, et ipsi commiserint, et perdito cuique ac nequissimo in facinoribus patrandis suam libentissime operam et quamcumque potuerunt opem praestiterint (Bullarum diplomatum et privilegiorum santorum romanorum pontificum, 10:23). 

By this constitution of ours, which will be in force forever, we order and command that all and any Jews of either sex who are found in any of the cities of our entire temporal dominion, including those of Bologna and Benevento, towns, lands, camps and places, even those under the same dominion, barons and domiciliaries having any jurisdiction, pre-eminence, title, insignia or exemption, must absolutely, within three months from the day of the publication of the present letters to be made in the Roman Curia, have departed from the borders of the same temporal dominion and Ecclesiastical State and have emigrated to another. Rather, we order both them and others, if they perhaps come to the aforementioned State, to be exiled from the entire aforesaid dominion in the future, not only in our own, but also in perpetual future times, without any hope of being returned; so that any Jews, whether foreigners, present or future, in any city, town, land or place of the said jurisdiction, including those of the householders and barons of this kind, who are found whenever after the lapse of the aforementioned three months, shall be stripped of all their possessions, and the same shall be subject to the same tax laws, and each of them who is found to be of sufficient age and physical strength to sustain that punishment shall be condemned to the triremes for as long as he lives. And this shall be observed everywhere in the entire aforesaid State (excepting only the city of Rome and the cities of Avignon and Ancona), where we have deemed it appropriate to tolerate those who are currently residing there or elsewhere within the aforesaid State, if they prefer to return to the said cities rather than elsewhere, both for the aforementioned reasons and to pursue trade, negotiations and commerce with the Easterners, and because we hope that those, especially those who are closest to our and this See's view, will be tempered from evil deeds by fear of punishment and that some will more easily recognize the light of truth (Bullarum diplomatum et privilegiorum santorum romanorum pontificum,10:24).
Original text: Hac nostra perpetuo valitura constitutione praecipimus et mandamus ut omnes, et quicumque Iudaei utriuslibet sexus, qui in quibusvis ditionis nostrae temporalis universae civitatibus, etiam Bononiensi et Beneventanae, oppidis, terris, castris et locis, etiam sub eadem ditione consistentium, baronum et domicellorum quamcumque iurisdictionem, praeeminentiam, titulum, insignia seu exemptionem habentium, ad praesens reperiuntur, debeant omnino, intra tres menses, a die publicationis praesentium litterarum in Romana Curia faciendae numerandos, ex eiusdem ditionis temporalis et Status Ecclesiastici finibus discessisse, et alio commigrasse. Quin potius, tam illos quam alios, siqui fortasse ad praedictum Statum accedent, iubemus in posterum a tota ditione praefata, non solum nostris, sed etiam perpetuis futuris temporibus, sine ulla spe redditus, exulare; ita ut quicumque Iudaei, sive peregrini, praesentes aut futuri, in quavis dictae ditionis civitate, oppido, terra vel loco, etiam domicellorum et baronum huiusmodi, quandocumque post lapsum trium mensium praedictorum inventi fuerint, rebus omnibus spolientur, eaeque fisci iuribus applicentur, eorum vero unusquisque, qui aetate et corpore viribus satis firmis ad eam poenam substinendam reperietur, ad triremes, quoad vixerit, sit eo ipso damnatus. Idque in toto Statu praedicto ubique servetur (urbe Roma et Avenionensi atque Anconitana civitatibus dumtaxat exceptis) ubi eos, qui ad praesens ibidem vel alibi intra praedictum Statum degunt, si ad dictas potius civitates quam alio se recipere maluerint, et praedictis de causis, et ad prosequendas cum orientalibus mercaturae, negociationes et commercia, et quia illos praesertim, qui nostro et huius Sedis conspectui proximi sunt, poenae formidine a maleficiis temperaturos atque interdum aliquos lumen veritatis facilius agnituros speramus, censuimus tolerandos (Bullarum diplomatum et privilegiorum santorum romanorum pontificum,10:24).

1593: Quum Hebraeorum malitia  (Pope Clement VIII)

And adding these things to them, to all and singular universities of the Hebrews, and to each of them, as well in the temporal dominion of the Holy Roman Church as also outside it in whatever places and in whatever parts of the Christian world they are established, we perpetually prohibit that they dare [to have] any books and impious Talmudic codices so often condemned, the most vain, kabbalistic, and other nefarious [books] prohibited and condemned by our predecessors, and also works, commentaries, treatises, volumes, and any writings whatsoever, whether composed in the Hebrew language or any other up to this time, or translated, published, and printed, or to be written, translated, published, or printed in the future, containing or comprising, tacitly or expressly, heresies or errors against the sacred scriptures of the Old Law and Testament; also insults, impieties, blasphemies against God, the most holy Trinity, and our Savior the Lord Jesus Christ, and His holy Christian faith; and the most blessed Mary, His Mother ever Virgin, and the blessed Angels, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and other saints of God, the most sacred Cross, the sacraments of the New Law, sacred images, and the holy Catholic Church and the Apostolic See; and against the faithful of Christ, especially bishops, priests, and other ecclesiastical persons, and also against those newly converted to the same faith of Christ, and neophytes, and others against the Catholicism...(Bullarum diplomatum et privilegiorum santorum romanorum pontificum 10:26).

Original; text:  Atque illis haec addentes, omnibus et quibuscumque universitatibus Hebraeorum, eorumque singulis, tam in temporali S. R. E. ditione quam etiam extra eam ubivis locorum et in quibusvis christiani orbis partibus consistant, perpetuo prohibemus ne quovis libros et codices impios Thalmudicos toties damnatos, vanissimos, cabalisticos atque alios nefarios a praedecessoribus nostris prohibitos et condemnatos, necnon opera, commentaria, tractatus, volumina et scripta quaecumque, sive lingua hebraica quam quavis alia hactenus conscripta, vel versa, edita et impressa, ut in posterum conscribenda vel vertenda, edenda aut imprimenda, continentes seu continentes, tacite vel expresse, haereses vel errores contra sacras Veteris Legis et Testamenti scripturas, necnon contumelias, impietates, blasphemias contra Deum, sanctissimam Trinitatem et Salvatorem nostrum Dominum Iesum Christum, illiusque sacram christianam fidem; ac beatissimam ipsius Genitricem semper Virginem Mariam, et beatos Angelos, patriarchas, prophetas, apostolos aliosque sanctos Dei, sacratissimam Crucem, novae Legis sacramenta, sacras imagines et sanctam catholicam ecclesiam et Sedem Apostolicam, ac contra christifideles, praesertim episcopos, sacerdotes et alias ecclesiasticas personas, atque etiam contra nuper ad eamdem Christi fidem conversos, neophytos et alios contra religionem... (Bullarum Diplomatum 10:26).

Moreover, [we revoke] all and any faculties, letters, permissions pardons, tolerances to read, hold, even for a certain or uncertain time, or on other pretexts, as preferred, any writings, volumes, books and other things prohibited abovementioned to any Jews, in general or in particular, by our predecessors and the said Apostolic See or its legates, also from the side or messengers or inquisitorial of heretical wickedness, or local Ordinaries or any others... (Bullarum Diplomatum 10:26).

Original text: Omnes vero et quascumque facultates, litteras, permissiones, indulta, tolerantias legendi, tenendi, etiam ad tempus certum vel incertum, vel aliis praetextibus quaecumque, ut praefertur, prohibita scripta, volumina, libros et alia supradicta quibusvis Iudaeis, in genere vel in specie, a praedecessoribus nostris et dicta Sede Apostolica seu eius legatis, etiam de latere vel nunciis aut inquisito ribus haereticae pravitatis, aut locorum Ordinariis vel quibusvis aliis...(Bullarum Diplomatum 10:26).

Therefore, we command our venerable brothers, both the cardinals, general inquisitors against heretical wickedness throughout the world, as well as the patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops and other local ordinaries and inquisitors of the same heretical wickedness, in whatever kingdoms, provinces and cities exist for the time being, by apostolic writings, that they and their individuals, in cities, lands and places where Jews reside, both in their synagogues and public and private places, in their homes or workshops and everywhere else, including among Christian booksellers, search most diligently for the aforementioned, thus forbidden books and writings, by themselves or by someone or others to be appointed by them, and against those who are found guilty of this kind of retention, to the aforementioned and other They shall proceed to the execution of the more severe penalties at their discretion. Whoever contradicts or disobeys, or who gives them aid, advice or favor, shall be restrained by appropriate remedies of law and fact, after an appeal; also invoking for this purpose, if necessary, the help of the secular arm (Bullarum Diplomatum 10:27).

Original text: Quocirca venerabilibus fratribus nostris, tam S. R. E. cardinalibus adversus haereticam pravitatem in toto terrarum orbe generalibus inquisitoribus, quam etiam patriarchis, primatibus, archiepiscopis, episcopis ceterisque locorum Ordinariis et inquisitoribus quibuscumque eiusdem haereticae pravitatis, in quibusvis regnis, provinciis et civitatibus pro tempore existentibus, per apostolica scripta mandamus quatenus ipsi et eorum singuli, in civitatibus, terris et locis, ubi Iudaei commorantur, tam in eorum synagogis et locis publicis quam privatis, domibus aut officinis et alias ubique locorum, etiam apud bibliopolas christianos praedictos, sic prohibitos libros et scripta, per se vel alium seu alios ab eis deputandos, diligentissime perquirant, et contra eos, qui super retentione huiusmodi culpabiles reperti fuerint, ad praedictarum et aliarum etiam graviorum eorum arbitrio poenarum exequutionem procedant. Contradictores necnon inobedientes quoscumque, eisve auxilium, consilium vel favorem praestantes, per opportuna iuris et facti remedia,appellatione postposita, compescendo; invocato etiam ad hoc, si opus fuerit, auxilio brachii saecularis (Bullarum Diplomatum 10:27).  

Sixteenth Century Responses to Martin Luther's Anti-Jewish Writings 

Most of Luther’s proposals [found in On the Jews and Their Lies] are paralleled in the other anti-Jewish literature of the period, but the specific formulation which follows may be attributed to him. Fortunately… most of the authorities proved unwilling to carry out his recommendations, whether out of horror at their inhumanity or out of self-interest (since Jews played an important role in the economy) (LW 47:268, fn. 173).

Already upon its first appearance in the year 1543, Luther’s treatise [On the Jews and Their Lies] caused widespread dismay, not only among contemporary Jews but also in Protestant circles. Melanchthon and Osiander are known to have been unhappy with its severity. Henry Bullinger, in correspondence with Martin Bucer, remarked that Luther’s views reminded him of those of the Inquisitors. And a subsequent document prepared by the churches of Zurich declared (speaking specifically of the treatise Vom Schem Hamphoras , published later in 1543), that “if it had been written by a swineherd, rather than by a celebrated shepherd of souls, it might have some—but very little—justification" (LW 47:123).
 

Nobody took Luther's programme seriously, and the new mandate of John Frederick in 1543, though severe, was on other lines. Three years later, as we shall see, Jews were still living unmolested in the Mansfeld area (Gordon Rupp, Martin Luther and the Jews (London: The Council of Christians and Jews, 1972), p. 18).

The question of Protestant acceptance or rejection of Luther's writings on the Jews is focused on his late, hate-filled polemics. Oberman has pointed out that Luther's close associate, Philipp Melanchthon, "was just as unhappy over the harsh writings on the Jews of the late Luther as were some of the leading city reformers." The Nuremberg Reformer and disciple of Luther, Osiander... wrote an anonymous apology for Luther's polemics. And Luther's lifelong colleague Justus Jonas used his role as Latin translator of Luther's writings against the Jews to do "his utmost to offset Luther's exasperated disenchantment with the mission to the Jews and in the process manages to draw an entirely novel and positive picture of them." This selective rejection of Luther is evident in the refusal of evangelical political authorities to follow through on Luther's recommendations. Because Luther was such an authority figure for Lutherans, it is striking that in 1611 when the Lutheran city of Hamburg asked the theological faculties of Jena and Frankfurt an der Oder whether the Jews fleeing from Portugal should have the right to remain in the city, both faculties answered in the affirmative. The Jena opinion self-consciously chose Luther's early, tolerant opinions over his later, intolerant ones. More important for future developments was the fact that Luther's portrayals and recommendations were not incorporated into the Lutheran confessional writings and Lutheran devotional literature. "For the decades after Luther's death all the evidence seems to support Lewin's thesis that Luther's late works on the Jews failed to achieve their intended effect” (Carter Lindberg, “Tainted Greatness: Luther’s Attitudes Toward Judaism and Their Historical Reception,” in Nancy A Harrowitz (ed.), Tainted Greatness: Antisemitism and Cultural Heroes, (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994), p. 23).

The reaction of contemporaries to Luther's anti-Jewish writings indicates fairly clearly that his readers saw a significant difference between the early and the later treatises. That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew appears to have been received with favor among Protestants, Jews, and Jewish converts (Marranos). Some Marranos in the Netherlands may even have translated the work into Spanish and sent copies to their brethren in Spain. The treatise may have even reached Palestine. It may also have encouraged several South Germans to work for the amelioration of the treatment of the Jews. On the other hand, it may have lent some support to the Catholic charge, aired, for instance, at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, that the Protestants had learned their doctrine from the Jews.

Protestant reaction was mixed. Melanchthon sent a copy of On the Jews and Their Lies to Landgrave Philipp of Hesse with the mild recommendation that the book contained "much useful teaching." When he sent a copy of On the Ineffable Name, however, he failed to add a similar recommendation. It is hard to say whether this indicates disapproval; generally speaking, Melanchthon was uncomfortable with the violent tone of many of the writings of the older Luther. Andreas Osiander of Nuremberg appears to have been critical of the work, although unwilling to confront Luther with his objections. Luther's Zurich opponents, the authors of the 1545 True Confession, branded Luther's On the Ineffable Name as "swinish" and "filthy," and remarked that had it been written by a swineherd and not by a famous shepherd of souls, there might have been some although little excuse for it (Mark U Edwards, Luther’s Last Battles (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), p. 135). 

...[I] seems that Luther’s sociopolitical recommendations regarding the Jewish people largely went ignored by contemporary political leaders. The violent internal struggle of Christianity turned the animus of the Lutheran Protestants away from Jews and onto Roman Catholics in the post-Luther Germany of the sixteenth century. Though a great deal more research needs to be done, it seems that the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries saw no significant employment of Luther’s Judenschriften on the part of German Protestants in the service of anti-Judaic or antisemitic goals. Luther's influence on Protestant approaches to the Jewish Question appears to have been rather uncertain until at least the late nineteenth, or perhaps the early twentieth century (Christopher J. Probst, Demonizing the Jews, pp. 57-58).

The immediate effects of Luther's final attacks against the Jews was minimal... Only in Electoral Saxony, Luther's home territory, were his radical steps against the Jews partially implemented. Jews could no longer travel through the territory in 1543 because of alleged attempts to convert Christians. But in Hesse and Brandenburg, Luther's advice, communicated in letters, was ignored (Eric W. Gritsch, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism, p. 97).  

 


Conclusion
This historical information above demonstrates why Roman Catholics bringing up Martin Luther's anti-Jewish writings are utilizing a very bad argument. Roman Catholicism treated the Jews harshly in the sixteenth century. If Luther's harsh attitude towards the Jews is proof that his theology is invalid, then similarly, Rome's theology is invalid by their own argument! If an argument also works against one's own position, it's not a valid argument! You've refuted yourself.  

The story of Martin Luther's negativity towards the Jews is really to tell the story of medieval Christianity against the Jews. Luther wrote words. Roman Catholicism also utilized words... that resulted in immediate brutal action. Informed Roman Catholics realize this. I've rarely come across any thoughtful Roman Catholic utilizing Luther's writings against the Jews. They realize their Roman Catholic atrocities far surpass anything Luther wrote on the Jews. 

Addendum: Roman Catholic Attacks Against Lutherans

Not only did Roman Catholicism write and act harshly against the Jews, but they also attacked another group.... a people known as "Lutherans."

1521: Decet Romanum (Pope Leo X) 

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 (Pope Leo X, Decet Romanum 1521). 

Original text: nominatim exprimi possent, decernimus excommunicationis et etiam anathematis, necnon maledictionis aeternae et interdicti, ac in eos et eorum descendentes dignitatum, honorum et bonorum privationis et inhabilitationis ad illa, necnon bonorum confiscationis et criminis laesae maiestatis et alias sententias, censuras et poenas, etiam in haereticos a canonibus inflictas, in dictis literis contentas, damnabiliter incidisse. Civitates quoque, terras, castra, oppida et loca, in quibus tunc pro tempore fuerint, et ad quae eos declinare contigerit, ac quae in illis sunt, ac alias etiam cathedrales et metropolitanas, monasteria et alia religiosa et pia loca, etiam exempta et non exempta, quaecumque ecclesiastico interdicto supposita esse; ita ut, illo durante, praetextu cuiusvis indulti apostolici, praeterquam in casibus a iure permissis, et in illis, non alias quam ianuis clausis ac excommunicatis et interdictis exclusis, nequeant missae et alia divina officia celebrari, apostolica auctoritate, tenore praesentium, declaramus; illosque pro excommunicatis et anathematizatis, maledictis, interdictis, privatis et inhabilibus, ubicumque locorum denunciari et publicari, ac ab omnibus christifidelibus arctius evitari praecipimus et mandamus (Bullarum Romanum vol. 5:762).

 

1523: Instruktion des Papstes (Pope Adrian VI) 

Since, therefore, Luther and his followers condemn the councils of the holy fathers, burn the sacred canons, and confuse all things according to their own whim and disturb the whole world, it is manifest that they, as public enemies and disturbers of the peace, ought to be exterminated by all lovers of that same peace (Instruktion des Papstes Adrian VI, Google translate).

Original text: Cum igitur Lutherus et sui concilia sanctorum patrum condemnant,sacros canones conburant et cuncta pro arbitrio suo confundant ac totum mundum perturbent, manifestum est eos tanquam publice pacis inimicos et perturbatores ab omnibus eiusdem pacis amatoribus exterminandos esse. (Instruktion des Papstes Adrian VI).

Monday, September 09, 2024

Fabricated Quote? Did Hitler Say Luther was a Great Man That Wanted to Destroy the Jews?

Disclaimer: this blog entry does not support antisemitism in any form. The author of this blog post believes Luther did make harsh antisemitic comments. Also, in citing Hitler, the citations below are not intended to support Hitler or Naziism, but rather to demonstrate those comments linking Luther to Hitler are fabricated.

Here's a snippet that's circulated the Internet for many years linking Luther directly to Hitler, said to prove Luther was the main inspiration of Hitler's horrific murdering of the Jews:

In 1924 at a Christian gathering in Berlin, Adolf Hitler, a professed Christian, stood before thousands of Christians, and with a standing ovation said:"I believe that today I am acting in accordance with the will of Almighty God. As I announce the most important work that Christians could undertake and that is to be against the Jews and get rid of them once and for all. We are doing the work of the Lord and let's get on with it." Hitler stated, "Martin Luther has been the greatest encouragement of my life. Luther was a great man. He was a giant. Within one blow he heralded the coming of the new dawn and the new age. He saw clearly that the Jews need to be destroyed and we're only beginning to see that we need to carry this work on." Hitler followed to the letter, Luther's treatise on how to exterminate the Jews. Martin Luther preached his last sermon avidly against the Jews and died four days later. Indeed, Nazi leader Striker at his Nuremberg trial stated, "I have never said anything that Martin Luther did not say."

We'll see that none of the Hitler quotes included above are entirely legitimate in the context in which they are placed. One of them is loosely a statement from Mein Kampf, another comes from an unverifiable second-hand recollection, and a few of the sentences are possible fabrications. Let's take a closer look.
 
Documentation
If the entirety of this quote is documented at all, it often links back to an article by Phyllis Petty, “Christian Hatred and Persecution of the Jews.” I located a version of this article from 2004. This version includes no documentation but does include a link to what appears to be an even earlier version. This version includes sparse documentation, noting at the very end of this paragraph, "Hocking, David, Why Jews Don't Become Christians, tape 1997." I was unable to locate this old tape. It would not surprise me if the entire content was lifted from a transcription of this tape. As an aside, this tape appears to be from the same pastor caught up in a scandal in the early 1990's.

There are at least two blaring errors present. First, I checked a number of collections documenting Hitler's speeches, and none of them mention a speech by him in Berlin in 1924. This means I could locate no proof that Hitler stood "before thousands of Christians" "with a standing ovation" in Berlin in 1924 saying what the quote purports. Second, I could locate only one instance of Hitler referencing Luther in any of his speeches, and it was a passing comment, had nothing to do with Jews, completely different from what's purported above.

The Hitler quotes appear to be at least two separate statements joined together. First: 
"I believe that today I am acting in accordance with the will of Almighty God. As I announce the most important work that Christians could undertake and that is to be against the Jews and get rid of them once and for all. We are doing the work of the Lord and let's get on with it." 
This sentence is so strongly similar to a passage from Mein Kampf, it must have been taken from it: "Therefore, I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator: By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work." 

 The second quote:
Hitler stated, "Martin Luther has been the greatest encouragement of my life. Luther was a great man. He was a giant. Within one blow he heralded the coming of the new dawn and the new age. He saw clearly that the Jews need to be destroyed and we're only beginning to see that we need to carry this work on."
I could locate no meaningful documentation for "Martin Luther has been the greatest encouragement of my life." If in fact Hitler said this, one would think scholars would have been all over it. They are not. I could locate no significant (or insignificant!) historian mentioning it. Weird. 

The second and third sentences are almost legitimate, almost. They also do not come from a speech, nor are they verifiable words written by Hitler. They come from a second-hand comment recorded by Dietrich Eckart found in his posthumous work Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin: Dialogue Between Hitler and Me (Der Bolschewismus von Moses bis Lenin: Zwiegespräch zwischen Hitler und mir), 35-36. Scholars are divided as to whether this book accurately represents the information contained as originating from Hitler. 

The final sentence "He saw clearly that the Jews need to be destroyed and we're only beginning to see that we need to carry this work on" appears to be a complete fabrication. I could not locate any meaningful source document for this sentence.

Serving as the context below, we will use the second-hand comment attributed to Hitler recorded by Dietrich Eckart found in his posthumous work Der Bolschewismus von Moses bis Lenin: Zwiegespräch zwischen Hitler und mir, 35-36. 

Context

Nevertheless, Luther was a great man, a giant. With a shock which pierced the twilight he saw the Jews as we have only begun to see them today. But, unfortunately, too late, and even then not there, where he had done the most damage—in Christianity. Oh, had he only seen them there; had he only seen them in his youth! Then he would not have attacked Catholicism, but, rather, the Jews behind it! Instead of a wholesale condemnation of the Church, he would have let his whole, passionate impetus fall on the true villains. Instead of glorifying the Old Testament, he would have branded it as the arsenal of the Antichrist. And the Jew—the Jew would have stood there in his abominable nakedness, as an eternal warning. 

He would have been obliged to get out of the Church, out of society, out of the halls of the princes, out of the castles of the knights and the houses of the citizens. For Luther had the strength and the courage and the overpowering will. It would never have come to the splitting of the Church or to the war which, in accordance with the wishes of the Hebrews, spilled Aryan blood in torrents for thirty long years.  (source)

German text:

Luther war ein großer Mann, ein Riese. Mit einem Ruck durchbrach der die Dämmerung; sah er den Juden, wie wir ihn erst heute zu sehen beginnen, Nur leider zu spät, und auch dann noch nicht da, wo er mit am schädlichsten wirkt: im Christentum, Ach, hätte er ihn da gesehen, in der Jugend gesehen! Nicht den Katholizismus hätte er angegriffen, sondern den Juden dahinter! Statt die Kirche in Bausch und Bogen zu verwerfen, hätte er seine ganze leidenschaftliche Wucht auf die wahren 'Dunkelmänner' fallen lassen. Statt das Alte Testament zu verklären, hätte er es als die Rüstkammer des Antichristen gebrandmarkt. Und der Jude, der Jude wäre in seiner scheußlichen Nacktheit dagestanden, zur ewigen Warnung.

Aus der Kirche hätte er herausmüssen, aus der Gesellschaft, aus den Hallen der Fürsten, aus den Burgen der Ritter, aus den Häusern der Bürgen Denn Luther hatte die Kraft und den Mut und den hinreißenden Willen, Nie wäre es zur Kirchenspaltung gekommen, nie zu dem Krieg, der nach Wunsch der Hebräer dreissig Jahre lang arisches Blut in Strömen vergoß.

Conclusion
The basic errors of the Hitler quote are described above in the documentation. There are other errors though in this quote. It purports, "Hitler followed to the letter, Luther's treatise on how to exterminate the Jews." But... Luther never said to exterminate the Jews. In fact, in his writing, On the Jews and Their Lies, he states not to "harm their persons": "They should not curse them or harm their persons" (LW 47:274). While Luther may be acquitted from advocating murder, he is not vindicated for his antisemitism later in his life. He did make sinful comments against the Jews, some of which did advocate violence and oppression.

The quote also purports, "Martin Luther preached his last sermon avidly against the Jews and died four days later." Luther's last sermon was on February 15, 1546. He died February 18. That's three days not four. The last sermon was not preached against the Jews (see LW 51:383-392). What appears be being referred to is an written addendum that was probably attached to his final sermon preached at Eisleben, February 15, 1546. True, this addendum does speak about the Jews, but it says much more than being "avidly" against the Jews. Luther expressed his desire that Jews should be treated in a "Christian manner" offering them the "Christian faith" to "receive the Messiah" and to "invite them to the Messiah and be baptized" to "exercise Christian love toward them and pray for them to convert and receive the Lord" (LW 58:458-459). However, even in this addendum, he considered the Jews to be blasphemers and enemies that should be driven away if they do not convert. What he gave with one hand, he took away with the other

The quote also states, "Indeed, Nazi leader Striker at his Nuremberg trial stated, "I have never said anything that Martin Luther did not say." A quick Google search of this quote seems to link back to all the same pages that contain the entirety of this quote we've been scrutinizing above. This quote may be a rendering of the following:
DR. MARX: Apart from your weekly journal, and particularly after the Party came into power, were there any other publications in Germany which treated the Jewish question in an anti-Semitic way?

STREICHER: Anti-Semitic publications have existed in Germany for centuries. A book I had, written by Dr. Martin Luther, was, for instance, confiscated. Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants' dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution. In the book The Jews and Their Lies, Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent's brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them...
If this is where this quote was taken from, Streicher has misread Luther. Luther never said to "destroy" the Jews. 

Addendum
This blog post has a few loose ends. I've reached out to the ministry of David Hocking to get a copy of his 1997 tape, Why Jews Don't Become Christians, with no response. I've also attempted to contact Phyllis Petty, the author of “Christian Hatred and Persecution of the Jews.” The e-mail I sent her was returned undelivered (her listed e-mail is over 20 years old). My theory of this entire quote is that it is probably a transcript of what David Hocking said on his tape, put on the Internet unverified by Phyllis Petty. I welcome anyone else to delve into this lengthy quote and verify it. While I can maneuver my way around the primary sources of Luther's writings, I'm not as fluent in World War II documentation. 

Tuesday, October 15, 2019

Preterist Archive: Martin Luther's Attitude Toward The Jews

The Preterist Archive has resurrected one of my old papers: Martin Luther's Attitude Toward The Jews (2005).  I appreciate that! for the last few years, the paper has only been available via the Internet Archive. No, I'm not a Preterist (as the term is popularly understood), but the Preterist Archive does in fact have some very useful research and materials available, whatever one's eschatological underpinnings may be. I stand amazed at how long the site has been going and how often it's updated. It certainly appears to be a true labor of love on behalf of the site's owner.

The paper was a personal research project. The materials used at the time were largely those found in a number of libraries, particularly Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia).  Originally, the paper was hosted on Eric Svendsen's NTR.Min.org (still available via the Internet Archive). Svendsen took his site down some time around 2009-2010 (see my comments here).

Since 2005, there's been quite an online information explosion! I wonder what my paper would be like now if I were to compose it again. My position on Luther's attitude towards the Jews is still basically the same as that presented in 2005. However, over the years my position has changed as to whether or not Luther himself was an anti-Semite.

There have been a number of researchers who conclude Luther's later anti-Jewish tracts were written from a position different than current (or modern-day) Antisemitism. 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. If one frames the issues with these categories, Luther was not Antisemitic.

Post World War II though, there has been much discussion about the nuances and etymology of the term Antisemitism. The contemporary use of the word "Antisemitism" does not typically have its distinction from anti-Judaism considered. The word now has a more broad meaning including anti-Judaism. The debate centers around whether the evolved use of the term is a significant step towards describing previous history or if it's setting up an anachronistic standard for evaluating previous history [see my entry here in regard to Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012)]. As I've looked at this issue from time to time, I'm thinking more along the lines of Gritsch's revised view rather than what I wrote back in 2005. I accept the modern definition of Antisemitism, and I think that it does include anti-Judaism. While Luther may have been primarily against the religion of Judaism, his harsh recommendations could have effected Jewish people as human beings as well. 

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.