Anti-Catholic WELS

  • Thread starter Thread starter PiusXIII
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
First of all, the Crusades were defensive wars. Secondly, the Inquisition was abused by secular authorities, but the Church did not participate in (and even condemned) the violence.

Thirdly, you greatly downplay the strength of Luther’s anti-Semitism. I recommed you read this.
 
I would also quote Mr. Luther here:
Martin Luther:
What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blaspemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must pratice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengenance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly - and I myself was unaware of it - will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. (remainder omitted)

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuternomy 17 :10 ff.]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: “what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord.” Thoses villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people’s obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 {:18], “You are Peter,” etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the righ to teach.

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home. (…remainder omitted).

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God’s blessing in a good and worthy cause.

Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3:19]}. For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.
But, as you correctly point out, this all means nothing.
 
40.png
LutheranStudent:
First of all, Luther’s Table Talk come from second and third-hand sources for the most part. Not everything in it is reliable and that has been well-recognized. And I would probably tend to agree with alot of it.
Secondly, Luther wrote no more harshly against the Jews than he did against the Papists, Anabaptists, Zwinglians, etc. It brings satisfaction to the RCC to ignore an earlier treatise, On that Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew. That’s the one that combated the anti-semitism common in medieval culture; yes, even the Catholic Church.
Thirdly, do some research on the Peasants War. Luther never wanted the princes to go as far as they did.
Fourthly, I like how you try to degrade the gospel by pointing out the jars of clay carrying it. This type of name-calling is easy for me, simply by naming people like Pope Alexander VI, events like the Inquisition and the Crusades.
Peace be with you!

I have done my share of research, believe me. Like I said in an earlier post, there is a problem making assumptions about people without knowing them. I just studied the crusades (with a lower-case “c”, which is how historians refer to them) for an entire term, reading almost exclusively primary sources, both Christian and Muslim. If there had never been any crusades we would all be Muslims right now. I’ve done my research…have you done yours?

I think that the title of Luther’s tract is self-explanatory: *Against the Murderous and Thieving Hordes of Peasants. *But more telling is what he wrote in this tract: “Let everyone who can smite, slay and stab, remembering that nothing can be more devilish than a rebel. It is just as when one must kill a mad dog.” But he didn’t really mean it, right?

You said, “Fourthly, I like how you try to degrade the gospel by pointing out the jars of clay carrying it.”
You made an outrageous and false claim, I called you on it…how is that degrading the Gospel??? You make Luther seem like the greatest man in the history of the world. And for the record, Protestants are the ones quickest to point out that there are sinners in the Catholic Church (usually citing the crusades, which fell under the definition of a just war), so don’t give me that stuff.

In Christ,
Rand
 
Do you know of any Protestant alive today (or anytime after Tyndale) that actually uses, or has ever used, his Bible translation? I have never met or heard of any
Nope not with out beating the bushes I don’t I think most of the KJV only people use the one that was made in 1611 by King James. Iif we beat the bushes somewhere a congergation might have one and be using it.
But I will stand corrected. Could you point me to the referances to the earlier versions? And did they use the Greek and Hebrew or the Latin Valgate. Just wondering.
By the way, this is the same author who says that the Scriptures came to us from “ORAL TRADITION” in his chapter on the composition of the Bible. Just thought that was an interesting tidbit.
Nope not going to bite on that one just yet 😃 not all the ducks are in a row.
 
Peace be with you!
40.png
littlesheep:
Nope not with out beating the bushes I don’t I think most of the KJV only people use the one that was made in 1611 by King James. Iif we beat the bushes somewhere a congergation might have one and be using it.
So it’snot used except* possibly by a small congregation somewhere*. If it was the first “real” English translation, shouldn’t many more people be using it? But wait, here’s the reason why. England was the only country (plus areas of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales) that spoke English, so that would be the only place that Bible would have been used. But King Henry VIII, who started the Protestant church in England, forbade its usage. A Protestant forbade its usage. That’s why it’s not used. Not because the Church suppressed it, but because the King of England suppressed it.
40.png
littlesheep:
But I will stand corrected. Could you point me to the referances to the earlier versions? And did they use the Greek and Hebrew or the Latin Valgate. Just wondering.
Let me do some searching for a link that you’ll find credible and I’ll post it for you. But even not counting Catholic translations, Wycliff’s was done prior to Tyndale’s.
40.png
littlesheep:
Nope not going to bite on that one just yet 😃 not all the ducks are in a row.
I think I know where you’re going with this. Later he says that everything they taught is contained in Scripture. But, there are two things about that: 1. He gives credit to oral tradition. 2. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that all of the Apostles taught is recorded in the Bible. Thus making his claim a, yes, you’ve got it, tradition.

In Christ,
Rand
 
40.png
littlesheep:
Nope not with out beating the bushes I don’t I think most of the KJV only people use the one that was made in 1611 by King James. Iif we beat the bushes somewhere a congergation might have one and be using it.
But I will stand corrected. Could you point me to the referances to the earlier versions? And did they use the Greek and Hebrew or the Latin Valgate. Just wondering.
Even the preface to the 1611 KJV mentions that several other earlier English translations exist.
 
I just caught the irony last night of using those two little words to prove something.
.
“Does not”
“Does to”

Sounds a lot like, “Did not”, “Did to” So, before, we get to, “Oh Ya! says who?”, “Ya! says me.” and stomp away mad at each other, lets back up and try another track.

Faith without works is dead. On that we agree. James is talking to believers in his letter.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but what we do not agree on is “How do we get Faith?” How are we changed from an unbeliever to a believer?
 
Even the preface to the 1611 KJV mentions that several other earlier English translations exist.
Umm I haven’t read the preface to KJV in ahh lets just say a lot of years. And back when I read it I was not to worred about how many earily English translations there were. I have heard though that the very First Edition really goofed with the “Thou Shalt Kill” :eek: Comandment.
 
40.png
littlesheep:
I just caught the irony last night of using those two little words to prove something.
.
“Does not”
“Does to”

Sounds a lot like, “Did not”, “Did to” So, before, we get to, “Oh Ya! says who?”, “Ya! says me.” and stomp away mad at each other, lets back up and try another track.

Faith without works is dead. On that we agree. James is talking to believers in his letter.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but what we do not agree on is “How do we get Faith?” How are we changed from an unbeliever to a believer?
I think we agree on how a person gets faith or becomes a believer. John 6:44.
 
40.png
littlesheep:
Umm I haven’t read the preface to KJV in ahh lets just say a lot of years. And back when I read it I was not to worred about how many earily English translations there were. I have heard though that the very First Edition really goofed with the “Thou Shalt Kill” :eek: Comandment.
Peace be with you!

Oh, no! What did the KJV Onlyists think of that? lol.

In Christ,
Rand
 
“Some of our men cut off the heads of their enemies; others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into the flames. Piles of heads, hands and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one’s way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the temple of Solomon, a place where religious services ware ordinarily chanted. What happened there? If I tell the truth, it will exceed your powers of belief. So let it suffice to say this much at least, that in the temple and portico of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins.”

How anyone can justify the crusades as a just war I do not understand.
 
LutheranStudent said:
“Some of our men cut off the heads of their enemies; others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into the flames. Piles of heads, hands and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one’s way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the temple of Solomon, a place where religious services ware ordinarily chanted. What happened there? If I tell the truth, it will exceed your powers of belief. So let it suffice to say this much at least, that in the temple and portico of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins.”

How anyone can justify the crusades as a just war I do not understand.

This is the fallacy of arguement by emotion. I don’t care about emotion. It doesn’t mean anything. The arguement by emotion is what got Jesus crucified. Was that decision correct? Please provide facts. Facts are the only thing that matter in a disagreement. I could provide you with horrible accounts of what Protestants did to Catholics and it would not matter a bit. I have already provided proof that Luther was an anti-semite whose writings could be mistaken for those of Adolf Hitler. This does not mean anything either. Even if the crusades were not just (which I contend they were; it is historical fact that you and I would be praising Allah right now if not for the crusades), they still would constitute only sin. Do your sins disqualify you from being a Christian? Certainly not. All Christians are sinners and err, including popes, and including even the original 12. Please provide evidence, not anger.
 
Oh, no! What did the KJV Onlyists think of that? lol
.
Hay! Maybe that is the cause of this whole Northen Ireland thing… They got ahold of a couple of copies of the first edition before it got corrected.:hmmm:
 
LutheranStudent said:
“Some of our men cut off the heads of their enemies; others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into the flames. Piles of heads, hands and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one’s way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the temple of Solomon, a place where religious services ware ordinarily chanted. What happened there? If I tell the truth, it will exceed your powers of belief. So let it suffice to say this much at least, that in the temple and portico of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins.”

How anyone can justify the crusades as a just war I do not understand.

Peace be with you!

And that source is…?
Anyway, that sounds like a description of the sacking of Jerusalem that I read somewhere. But do you know what that’s called? Medieval warfare. Medieval warfare in general was not a pretty sight. Were the Christians wrong to take Jerusalem in that way? Yes, I think so. But that is what happened when a city was taken by force. The Muslims were going to do it too, but the Christians surrendered the city before it came to that.

Oh, have you read your Old Testament lately?

Once again, I just studied the crusades for ten straight weeks. I still have all my books from the class as well (one is completely primary documents, the others are intersperced with primary and secondary sources).

In Christ,
Rand
 
40.png
littlesheep:
.
Hay! Maybe that is the cause of this whole Northen Ireland thing… They got ahold of a couple of copies of the first edition before it got corrected.:hmmm:
Peace be with you!

You know, I think you might be on to something here.😃

In Christ,
Rand
 
Since you are so keen on quoting Trent, I noticed you ‘forgot’ to post the very first
Canon on Justification from Trent
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; or that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins: let him be anathema.

Please reconcile these two canons for me.
 
40.png
littlesheep:
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; or that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins: let him be anathema.

Please reconcile these two canons for me.
That’s very simple, they aren’t even the slightest contradictory. It’s possible that you are having trouble because they arein a rather old form of English of course.

The first canon says that no person can be justified by his own works without the grace of Christ, whether he does the works because his own human nature makes him want to or because he is trying to follow the law. It is the anathemazation of pelagianism.

The 7th canon says that if a person did do good works before being justified through Christ, those works were not sin. See, some people were teaching that any good works done apart from Christ were not only insufficient for justification (which we all agree they are), but also that they were actually sinful. It also says that its not a sin to try to do good works so that you will be more able to receive grace. It doesn’t say that doing works for these purposes actually does anything, it simply says that people who try aren’t sinning, even though they’re not going to get anywhere.
 
This is the fallacy of arguement by emotion. I don’t care about emotion. It doesn’t mean anything. The arguement by emotion is what got Jesus crucified. Was that decision correct?

Oh, I guess you’re right. Let me apologize for being too emotional. You’re relentless logic, on the other hand, provides a wonderful supplement to the commandment:

“You shall not murder.” Ex. 20

Please provide facts. Facts are the only thing that matter in a disagreement. I could provide you with horrible accounts of what Protestants did to Catholics and it would not matter a bit.

Right-o.

I have already provided proof that Luther was an anti-semite whose writings could be mistaken for those of Adolf Hitler. This does not mean anything either. Even if the crusades were not just (which I contend they were; it is historical fact that you and I would be praising Allah right now if not for the crusades),

Um, no you haven’t, you’ve proved that Luther was anti-error and pro-truth. I agree with that… Secondly, I would like to know by what right you claim ***historical fact ***concerning theoretical situations. The irony, of course, is that you were just harping on facts.

they still would constitute only sin. Do your sins disqualify you from being a Christian? Certainly not. All Christians are sinners and err, including popes, and including even the original 12. Please provide evidence, not anger.

Whoo-hoo, now we’re getting somewhere. Are you understanding my jars of clay comment? Degrade and demonize Luther all you want, but you cannot touch “his” theology, because in reality it is not his. It belongs to God.
 
40.png
LutheranStudent:
This is the fallacy of arguement by emotion. I don’t care about emotion. It doesn’t mean anything. The arguement by emotion is what got Jesus crucified. Was that decision correct?

Oh, I guess you’re right. Let me apologize for being too emotional. You’re relentless logic, on the other hand, provides a wonderful supplement to the commandment:

“You shall not murder.” Ex. 20

Please provide facts. Facts are the only thing that matter in a disagreement. I could provide you with horrible accounts of what Protestants did to Catholics and it would not matter a bit.

Right-o.

I have already provided proof that Luther was an anti-semite whose writings could be mistaken for those of Adolf Hitler. This does not mean anything either. Even if the crusades were not just (which I contend they were; it is historical fact that you and I would be praising Allah right now if not for the crusades),

Um, no you haven’t, you’ve proved that Luther was anti-error and pro-truth. I agree with that… Secondly, I would like to know by what right you claim ***historical fact ***concerning theoretical situations. The irony, of course, is that you were just harping on facts.

they still would constitute only sin. Do your sins disqualify you from being a Christian? Certainly not. All Christians are sinners and err, including popes, and including even the original 12. Please provide evidence, not anger.

Whoo-hoo, now we’re getting somewhere. Are you understanding my jars of clay comment? Degrade and demonize Luther all you want, but you cannot touch “his” theology, because in reality it is not his. It belongs to God.
I agree completely with you that we can’t criticize theology based on actions, as I have from the beginning. I only mentioned Luther to make the “so what?” point about the crusades. (I would also say that this brings up the issue of whether killing during war qualifies as murder, but that is not really either here nor there and would be another thread anyways).

I can say that you cannot touch the theology of the Catholic Church because it belongs to God. This would not be worth anything however because it is only rhetoric until it is proven or supported. In fact, I would say that it can be supported far more easily than the position that Luther’s theology belongs to God. Catholic theology is able to be seen represented throughout history back until the time of Christ. Even if some of Luther’s theology is able to be shown to have been expressed by some individuals in the early centuries, there are several points of his theology which did not once appear until he suggested them in the 1500s. If this is truly the theology of God, why did He force us to wait 1500 years before it became known?

This also gets into the bigger issue of discussing specific points of his theology, which would amount to several threads, of course. Feel free to start any if you would like to do so.
 
Peace be with you!

LutheranStudent, you’re just not getting it. It’s not registering with you. So let me spell this out for you very clearly.

**The crusades

**Item 1. Within 100 years after Muhammad died, the Muslim empire had taken over all of Arabia, North Africa, and most of Spain. Charles Martel and the Franks stopped them there at the Battle of Poitiers in 732.

1a. So we can see that Muslim expansion posed a serious threat to not only Europe, but all of Christendom. We’re talking less than a hundred years, and they went from not existing to controlling more land than anyone had since the Romans–2/3 of Christendom.

Item 2. In 1009 the Fatimite caliph of Egypt ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre. This was during the time the Muslims held the Holy Land and were supposed to be keeping it open and safe for pilgrims of all three faiths (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism). Pilgrims began to be attacked and killed along the Pilgrim Road. Armed soldiers had to escort the pilgrims to protect them. Pilgrims during this time did not travel in small groups, for safety reasons.

2a. What aggression was there here on the Christians side? There wasn’t any. And this is almost a century BEFORE the preaching of the First Crusade. Had the popes simply wanted to go to war, now would have been a good time. But they didn’t.

Item 3. The Byzantine emperor called for aid from Western Europe because Constantinople had already been besieged by the Muslims two or three times. The Byzantine Empire was being overrun (in fact, the Muslims did pass it and enter parts of Europe itself, though not in great numbers). Pope Urban II answered this call.

3a. So we can see that all of the aggression (unprovoked, I might add) was on the part of the Muslims. Christians had done nothing to start a war; hence, the First Crusade was entirely DEFENSIVE.

And you never provided a source for that quote you posted, or even who said it. How am I to respond if I don’t even know who said that or where it came from?

In Christ,
Rand
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top