The Good Friday prayer is not a call for the destruction of the Jewish people. That is a big difference here. Luther in a number of tracks he wrote called for their destruction and was the basis of Hitler’s six step plan to eliminate Jews. To ignore this about Luther and not discuss this is hiding your head in the sand.Have we forgotten about Pope Pius XI and the ‘Good Friday Prayer for the Jews’ that was part of the liturgy?
Maybe we’re not reading the same thing? Neither this prayer which was part of the liturgy (well, it still is but was modified), nor Luther’s words are in the spirit of kindness. In a way, yes, this prayer does speak of destruction. We could just have different opinions on the matter, but I don’t see it as any better.
Deliverance from darkness is not a call to destroy the Jews because they don’t believe in Jesus. Since you are an independent Catholic, I am not sure where you are getting your ideas from at all. Luther wrote a number of tracks that were not about praying for them but tying stones around their necks and throwing them in the river to drown. But as an independent Catholic, I would suspect that you have many more quibbles with the liturgy than the Good Friday prayer for conversion of the Jews.
Absolutely right. But I think it shows an attitude that was had. It’s likely that during Luther’s time, this prayer was part of the liturgy when he left. I’m not trying to justify his attitude, I’m just trying to say that I’m not surprised based on what may have been a popular opinion.
I honestly didn’t realise he was so much like that. They certainly don’t teach that in school. I’m not advocating, I was just drawing a similarity from what I was already familiar.
Luther’s ideas where helped with the support of the local political powers which gave him protection and saw it as an opportunity to brake away from the Holy Roman empire. Likewise didn’t help that some of the worst Popes in terms of morality were during Luther and cries to reform were ignored.
That’s the frightening part. When people say things like this… and people listen, there is immense cause for worry. If he were just saying this and everyone disagreed with him, or thought him mad, then he would be woefully errant, but at least safe from the sin of scandal, and perhaps a man to be pitied rather than frowned upon.
) dithering about what Luther may or may not have meant isn’t going to get us nearly as far as having someone who actually has conviction in the Lutheran faith.Well, I’m all for that.Undoubtedly, as I’ve not read any of it. I’ve only recently joined the Church, so I’m making my way through Scripture and the CCC before I tackle too much else. (Well, I’m also reading St. Augustine’s Confessions, but that’s because he reminds me of me.) I am not disputing your claims about Luther, but saying that anyone could take a large part of even the Septuagint and say, “Look! Christians believe in slavery and etc, etc…” You’ve heard it. I’ve heard it. Everyone on this forum has probably heard it.
My point isn’t that I’m trying to defend Luther. Not in the slightest. Or Calvin, if we’re going to go Rambo on the Reformation. My point is that I would like an educated, well-informed, and devout Lutheran to explain why and in what context these things were said. The same way you’d want an educated, well-informed Catholic to explain Confessions or Summa or anything else. And I think that falls on the shoulders of the Lutherans in this forum to step up. That’s all!
Lutherans have at it. Defend your man.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism / newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
You marked yourself as “independent.” You make it sound as if a CAF moderator added the word. I suppose I’m a “dependent” Catholic, dependent on Christ, on His Church, on the Magisterium, on the Grace of God found in the sacraments, I could go on…
And you may want to read the conversation above. I’ve already addressed this. To compare the schism of the Orthodox with the heresy of Luther is absurd and insulting to the EO. The difference is one of kind, not degree. Besides, I was responding to your accusation that the OP, a Catholic, was being “divisive.” Ironic coming from a Lutheran. Luther being the ultimate divider in Church history.
The blue Anglicanism line oughta merge into the western though. Right at the end. The Anglican Ordinariate. Some of the eastern churches should be continuous as well. Just saying. I know you didn’t make it.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...anches.svg/500px-ChristianityBranches.svg.png
The Eastern Churches were being schismatic way before it was cool and hip in the Reformation days.
I’d rather admit the flaws of a man than cover them up. After all, no matter how much context you throw in, some of those statements speak for themselves. Luther alone does not suffice.
We are to pray for our enemies and for unity (John 17) - should we not?
Nope, no need to defend. Luther’s dead and gone - and being a mere man, he said all sorts of stupid things.Well, I’m all for that.
Firstly, this is one of the least charitable threads I’ve seen on CAF (and there are many); but I am heartened by the graciousness of my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters who have seen through this decidedly ill-intentioned OP and posted in defense of their Lutheran friends. We, as Christians, should never bear false witness against our neighbor.
Oh, dear God! Forgive them, they know not how silly they are!Here is an article I put together that itemizes some of the Martin Luther’s most ridiculous comments. If you know a Protestant, please share this with them. It’s important that we know where we come from.
Thanks
When I was a christadelphian I had to defend the writings of the founders John Thomas and Robert Roberts at all costs, even ignoring the obviously anti-language that they employed towards many, and their overt grumpiness. I did that through the method of scoffing the presenter and down-playing the severity. No they didn’t really mean it so harshly, look at the context, sure they used heavy speech but that was just the way they did in those days and so on and so on. I had to do that because if I could not defend them then my state of religion would not have a basis to stand on. Their actions and words ultimately reflected on me by association.