A Question for Lutherans

  • Thread starter Thread starter Valke2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If Luther made positive contributions toward tolerance for Judiasm, I’m all ears. Given the context of his statements and the time that they were made, were his attitudes toward Jews progressive during his time?
I don’t know. I doubt that they were progressive for the time. However, in view of the wide-spread discrimination, as well as pograms against Jews in many places in Europe, I’m not too sure that his statements were unusual for his time either.
 
I can’t speak for Lutherans.

But as a former Lutheran, it was one of the many reasons I left Lutheranism and became Catholic.
Whew!

Now I don’t feel so bad about leaving Catholicism because Alexander VI was such a horndog.
 
I don’t know. I doubt that they were progressive for the time. However, in view of the wide-spread discrimination, as well as pograms against Jews in many places in Europe, I’m not too sure that his statements were unusual for his time either.
Maybe not unusual. But IMO, whether it was unusual or not is does not bear on the question of whether it was antisemetism.
 
Lutherans don’t consider Luther a prophet of God. His anti-semitism is probably just a product of the times, and the place Luther was living in. Luther isn’t the first to think bad about the Jews and he definitely won’t be the last. It proves Luther is human, and that’s about it.
 
Maybe not unusual. But IMO, whether it was unusual or not is does not bear on the question of whether it was antisemetism.
First of all, we don’t know what, according to you, antisemitism is.

Secondly, it may not change the actual judgment of whether what he said was antisemitic but it certainly would mitigate his guilt for it if he lived during a time when there was no liberal egalitarian zeitgeist where things like antisemitism were decried and demonized.
 
Whew!

Now I don’t feel so bad about leaving Catholicism because Alexander VI was such a horndog.
Actually, I thought Alexander earned the enmity of Spain specifically because of his tolerant policy towards the Jews. In fact, he promoted peace between Spain and Portugal, putting a rein on their fierce competition for empire by his line of demarcation. He even treated Jewish refugees from Spain with kindness. And in Rome he made considerable improvements and did much for the university. :confused:

To be honest, I would have thought Pope Stephen VII would have been a better example.

In the autumn of 896, Pope Stephen VII had the body of his predecessor, Pope Formosus, exumed from the grave and dressed in pontifical vestements. Charge were then read against the corpse before his blessing fingers were cut off and the body thrown into the Tiber.

It is well know that Stephen was a very jealous opponent of Formosus and was certainly unbalanced. It came as no surprise to many that Stephen himself was to meet a violent fate, being thrown into prison and, in the end, was strangled by a Roman mob.

Certainly, if one of Jesus’ own apostle’s, hand selected by God himself, could fall away from Christ, it seems possible that Pope Stephen VII may have gone along the same path.

Even still, the Catholic understands that doctrine remains pure even if the people sin, including the Pope.

I think Luther was truly moved by God at first to reform the church from within. But as time went by, he became increasingly obstinant in his approach with the papacy.

In the end, Luther, for better or worse, started a religious movement that did officially conclude a very anti-semtic message within it’s own doctrine. And his words do easilly give support to those who are looking for reasons to hate Jews.

Hating people simply because they are Jewish is the very definition of antisemitism.

And pointing toward the attitudes of other people who held similar views during this era does not remove the burden of guilt from Luther. It only indicates that Luther was, in regards to the Jews anyways, essentially no better than the common people around him. There’s nothing flattering about his words. And at least one Lutheran body that I can think did in fact apologize for them.

More to the point, however, Christians are not justified before God for saying the things we sometimes do against Jews. In order to be truly Catholic, we need to ask someone for their forgiveness when we have wronged them-- not engage in polemics designed to shift the blame in light of obvious errors on our part.

http://www.notredamecenter.org/admin/imagenes_db/why_jerusalem/pope_at_wall_big.jpg

Pope John Paul II was the first pope to visit Israel since Saint Peter and actually say the name of the country. He was the first pope to apologize to the Jews for the centuries of persecution on the part of Christians. He was the first pope to step inside a synagogue, having gone to the main temple in Rome in 1985. He was the first pope to insist that Jews be called “our older brothers.” He was certainly the first pope to stand before the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem and place a written prayer in one of the many ancient crevices, asking again for forgiveness and for the promotion of world brotherhood.

As a gesture it was spectacularly telegenic. In light of the sad history between Catholics and Jews, it was truly unbelievable.
 
You’re sorry I’m Jewish??? 😉
Yeah, I couldn’t live without my meat and cheese pizza… kosher would just be too much for me:D

The question you first raised made me assume you were Catholic. I had better learn not to judge people before I have all the facts:)
 
Lutherans don’t consider Luther a prophet of God. His anti-semitism is probably just a product of the times, and the place Luther was living in. Luther isn’t the first to think bad about the Jews and he definitely won’t be the last. It proves Luther is human, and that’s about it.
What is his position in the Church? Is it just as a “founding father”? Is the Lutheren Bible different?
 
Pope John Paul II was the first pope to visit Israel since Saint Peter and actually say the name of the country. He was the first pope to apologize to the Jews for the centuries of persecution on the part of Christians. He was the first pope to step inside a synagogue, having gone to the main temple in Rome in 1985. He was the first pope to insist that Jews be called “our older brothers.” He was certainly the first pope to stand before the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem and place a written prayer in one of the many ancient crevices, asking again for forgiveness and for the promotion of world brotherhood.

As a gesture it was spectacularly telegenic. In light of the sad history between Catholics and Jews, it was truly unbelievable.
I don’t know what telegenic means, but I think I would agree. He was a-ok.

I didn’t know the part about being the first in a synagouge.
 
Yeah, I couldn’t live without my meat and cheese pizza… kosher would just be too much for me:D

The question you first raised made me assume you were Catholic. I had better learn not to judge people before I have all the facts:)
Fortunately for me, I didn’t embrace Judaism until about 3 years ago. So I was able get in plenty of lasgna and sausage pizza before I saw the error of my ways :). I didn’t intend for my original question to be taken antagonisticly. THere are plenty of Luthern churches in my area and I assume they are good people. So I was interested to know how their pastors (ministers?) addressed the issue.
 
What is his position in the Church? Is it just as a “founding father”? Is the Lutheren Bible different?
Luther is, to Lutherans, a doctor of the Church, an important theologian and the Reformer who shaped the Evangelical Church from the wreckage of the medieval Latin church.

He’s very important, but he’s not infallible and he’s not without faults.

The Lutheran Bible is the same as every other Protestant Bible. It is different than the Catholic Bible since the only books of the Old Testament we accept as canonical are the ones Jews accept.
 
Luther is, to Lutherans, a doctor of the Church, an important theologian and the Reformer who shaped the Evangelical Church from the wreckage of the medieval Latin church.

He’s very important, but he’s not infallible and he’s not without faults.

The Lutheran Bible is the same as every other Protestant Bible. It is different than the Catholic Bible since the only books of the Old Testament we accept as canonical are the ones Jews accept.
Thanks. (But when no one is looking, and everyone’s asleep, do you ever just sneak downstairs for a peek at Macabees?)
 
Thanks. (But when no one is looking, and everyone’s asleep, do you ever just sneak downstairs for a peek at Macabees?)
Sometimes…🙂

Seriously though, it’s valuable historical material, it’s not as though we can’t or shouldn’t read it.
 
Thanks. (But when no one is looking, and everyone’s asleep, do you ever just sneak downstairs for a peek at Macabees?)
Macabees used to be included in all Bibles even after the reformation, not canonical but it was included. It wasn’t until the rise of anti-Catholicism in the 1800’s that the apocryphal books were ousted completely from Protestant Bibles. You know the invading hoards of drunken Irish and greasy papist I-tal-yans scared the elitist Protestants in American senseless. This also gave rise to many false religions because of thier Catholic hatred.

If Luther would’ve had his way James and Revelation would’ve been gone also, too Catholic.
 
Luther is, to Lutherans, a doctor of the Church, an important theologian and the Reformer who shaped the Evangelical Church from the wreckage of the medieval Latin church.

He’s very important, but he’s not infallible and he’s not without faults.

The Lutheran Bible is the same as every other Protestant Bible. It is different than the Catholic Bible since the only books of the Old Testament we accept as canonical are the ones Jews accept.
Not to mention he may have been just a little bit nuts 😛
 
Not to mention he may have been just a little bit nuts 😛
Yeah, I don’t know.

We hear that a lot about old father Luther. I guess it’s an easy way to dismiss him.

I think it more likely that he was the highly intelligent son of an illiterate peasant who carried the marks of his upbringing with him all his life and that they evinced themselves in the way he spoke.

It is, to my way of thinking, to his credit that he never considered himself above the common run of men but all his life spoke and lived like a normal Saxon burgher.
 
And St. John Vianney was, in all likelihood, at least mildly retarded.

For the sake of clarification, any decent biography of the Cure D’Ars will explain that he had a very hard time in seminary, so much so that his superiors did not believe that he had the mental wherewithal to be a priest.

Eventually, he was ordained but he was prohibited from certain priestly duties (it’s been a long time since I read it, but I think he wasn’t allowed to hear confessions at first).

Anyhow, the consensus is that he just wasn’t a very bright person and may, possibly have been, as I said, at least mildly retarded.

Having said that, it must also be mentioned that he is the patron saint of parish priests and that the reason this is so is because he had a supremely loving and pastoral heart and that his gifts as a caretaker of souls so outstripped any deficiency he may have had in cognitive ability as to make it inconsequential.

And my point in mentioning it is that faults or weaknesses do not disqualify a man for service.
 
I’ve never really heard of Luther’s anti-semitism until recently. Our church just never mentioned it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top