Martin Luther

[Roman_Catholic_1]

No you didn’t miss anything. Thank you for catching my error.

I was in a hurry and misspoke. I had quoted Hitler, in an earlier post, making reference to Luther. I have not found Hitler directly quoting Luther.

It is good to clarify this.

I will add, that Hitler would probably use anything, even taken out of context, to justify his actions.

Thanks,
Anna

No worries. Happens to us all.

God bless you

 

[Anna_Scott]

I know that I have posted the most unfavorable writings of Martin Luther, and the tragic way in which his writings were used after his death.

What I want to express is, that in my studies of Judaism and Christianity; I have never really been able to come to terms with the violence in Christian history. I really do not know how to make sense of this. This is probably why I have posted so much about Luther’s antisemitism.

Yet, I do know that not all Christians persecuted and slaughtered.

My Jewish friends, of whom I spoke in an earlier post, have such a heart of forgiveness. The husband has been sending contributions to help support a group of Catholic Nuns who helped Jews escape during the Holocaust. The Nuns retired here in the U.S. and only a few are still living today-but this kind Jewish man is still sending checks.

So, I really did not mean to highjack this Thread. It’s just that Luther’s writings really strike a nerve with me.

Anna

 

[Ginger2]

Why not a historical nonfiction? If you teach fiction about Luther, that means means you are teaching lies. Why not stick to the truth about Luther?

Historical fiction indicates a story that is accurate to the times, and the non-fiction characters.

The fiction comes in often as a fictional character tells the true story through his eyes.

For instance, Marysgirls could place herself in the story portraying true events as though she is a silent observer telling the story as an eyewitness and giving her impressions of what was going on. Marysgirl was not there, but tells the story accurately as tho she were there - That is why it is fiction. Does that make sense?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Byzantine_Wolf: This was not the case with Luther. His was vehemently antisemitic. But, even to say “Jews foolishly do not accept Christ,” is still a statement of judgment.

Why would the Jews want to convert to a religion that persecuted and slaughtered their people for so long?

Again, I’m not implying what Luther wrote wasn’t bad nor antisemitic.

As for the question of why the Jews would convert to a religion that persecuted them…they weren’t persecuted by Christianity, they were persecuted by men who claimed to be Christians.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Again, I’m not implying what Luther wrote wasn’t bad nor antisemitic.

As for the question of why the Jews would convert to a religion that persecuted them…they weren’t persecuted by Christianity, they were persecuted by men who claimed to be Christians.

Who were stoked up by… church leaders.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Who were stoked up by… church leaders.

Such as who?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Such as who?

A Church Father? Is St John Chrysostom a Church Father? And, Doctor?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

A Church Father? Is St John Chrysostom a Church Father? And, Doctor?

Yes, he is a Church Father, but as explained earlier his writings were not antisemitic. Furthermore, I’ve yet to see any evidence that Christians persecuted Jews because of what he wrote, or that they quoted what he wrote as inspiration for their persecution.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Byzatine_Wolf: thanks for the clarification.

gurneyhalleck1: I appreciate your comments. However, I’m not sure we can assume that Luther only saw the Jews as “rebels from the truth.” There is so much hatred in his writing. I think no one can really know the intentions of Luther’s heart, except Luther. We do, however, have his written word.

Byzantine_Wolf: This was not the case with Luther. His was vehemently antisemitic. But, even to say “Jews foolishly do not accept Christ,” is still a statement of judgment.

Why would the Jews want to convert to a religion that persecuted and slaughtered their people for so long?

Gottle of Geer: I agree that there was plenty of “Anti-Judaism & Judaeophobia” in the centuries leading up to Luther’s day.

You misunderstand me. My intention is not to “single Luther out.” This Thread is entitled Martin Luther. I am offering information on Martin Luther, because I think if one is going to write about his life, one should consider the whole picture.

I do agree that it would absolutely be important to include the antisemitic views of Luther’s contemporaries, and the centuries leading up to his day. I have never said he was the only one espousing antisemitism.

In my studies of the history of Judaism and Christianity, I have read a number of Jewish authors. I think it is important to read the Jewish perspective, since they have endured centuries of persecution at the hands of those who called themselves Christian, and other religions as well.

I think my writing here is a way of expressing an issue that is deeply disturbing to me. When I look back over history, I can see why so few Jews converted to Christianity.

Again, why would they want to convert to a religion that persecuted and slaughtered their people for centuries?

I have Jewish friends and we have had many long discussions. I am actually amazed at their ability to forgive the past. Their devotion to God surpasses that of many Christians I know. God is woven into every part of their lives.

So, again, let me say that it is not my intention to “single out” Luther. I know he had plenty of company, and centuries of antisemitism to draw from.

Then I think we agree. Christianity has been hugely damaging in may ways, & its hatred of the Jews is one of the most frightening of them. What is so amazing is that these appalling things have been so readily forgiven - IMO it verges on the miraculous. Whether Christianity has any credibility left, is another matter. After Auschwitz & Belsen, it’s not easy to believe it does. Trying to blame Hitler’s policies on his beliefs alone, & denying that those policies were made possible by the legacy of centuries of hatred for the Jews, is just not convincing; for what could he have done, if millions had not held similar views ?​

 

[StrawberryJam]

Yes, he is a Church Father, but as explained earlier his writings were not antisemitic. Furthermore, I’ve yet to see any evidence that Christians persecuted Jews because of what he wrote, or that they quoted what he wrote as inspiration for their persecution.

I thought in addition to being a church father he is also a doctor of the church.
Oh well.
I am sure he had no influence on bishops at all. And, most priests at that time were barely literate, is that correct?
Can you show me the posts that show his writings were not antisemitic? I must be missing posts.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I thought in addition to being a church father he is also a doctor of the church.

I’m Orthodox. We don’t call them doctors.

I am sure he had no influence on bishops at all. And, most priests at that time were barely literate, is that correct?

Priests had to read large passages from the New Testament during liturgy - I highly doubt they were “barely literate.” Where exactly are you getting this historical information?

 

[StrawberryJam]

I’m Orthodox. We don’t call them doctors.

Priests had to read large passages from the New Testament during liturgy - I highly doubt they were “barely literate.” Where exactly are you getting this historical information?

I thought the Orthodox highly respected St John Chrysostom, I had no idea the title doctor was over the top for them. Considering what a notable theologian he was/is considered by both sides of the “fence” if that is a good word to use even.

I know I have seen his icon at an Orthodox parish I visited for Divine Liturgy.

He must be on the top there.

Well, I have read about the illiteracy of priests here. Usually in defense of why local priests would allow XYZ take your pick “heresy” or “sin”. The general defense was they were illiterate. Especially when they took money (simony?)

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I thought the Orthodox highly respected St John Chrysostom, I had no idea the title doctor was over the top for them. Considering what a notable theologian he was/is considered by both sides of the “fence” if that is a good word to use even.

I didn’t say it was over the top, or necessarily wrong, I’m simply saying that you won’t hear the word attached to him as much in Orthodoxy as you will in Roman Catholicism. Again, not wrong or over the top, just different wordings.

Well, I have read about the illiteracy of priests here. Usually in defense of why local priests would allow XYZ take your pick “heresy” or “sin”. The general defense was they were illiterate. Especially when they took money (simony?)

Out of curiosity, where’s “here”? It would be quite interesting if they were, given that their position required, as I stated before, reading large passages during services.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I didn’t say it was over the top, or necessarily wrong, I’m simply saying that you won’t hear the word attached to him as much in Orthodoxy as you will in Roman Catholicism. Again, not wrong or over the top, just different wordings.

Out of curiosity, where’s “here”? It would be quite interesting if they were, given that their position required, as I stated before, reading large passages during services.

Here being search feature on CAF. Sorry I was vauge.

Well, that is interesting. So, you would say that most priests at the time of St John Chrysostom were literate? Doesn’t that make things worse then? Isn’t it easier to understand the things they did if they were not?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Here being search feature on CAF. Sorry I was vauge.

Ah OK. I didn’t know if you…like…lived in France or somewhere that apparently had that spread around a lot.

Well, that is interesting. So, you would say that most priests at the time of St John Chrysostom were literate? Doesn’t that make things worse then? Isn’t it easier to understand the things they did if they were not?

I assume you refer to heresy and sin? That is more a sign of our fallen nature than anything else. Just because a person wears robes does not make them perfect. Orthodoxy, for her part, teaches that Church Infallibility does not mean every single priest or individual church is perfect, but that rather the Church entire, with her teachings, is perfect. There may have existed throughout time priests who hated Jews, blacks, or various ethnicities, but the Church has never embraced such hateful ideology.

There was an early heresy around Saint Augustine’s time known as Donatism, which taught that the holy mysteries carried out by the clergy were entirely dependent on the holiness of the clergy - ie. if you were baptized and it turned out the priest doing the baptism at the time had some moral problems in his personal life, your baptism was not legit. The Church condemned this teaching because, first and foremost, the holy mysteries are carried out by God and are dependent on His will alone.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Ah OK. I didn’t know if you…like…lived in France or somewhere that apparently had that spread around a lot.

I assume you refer to heresy and sin? That is more a sign of our fallen nature than anything else. Just because a person wears robes does not make them perfect. Orthodoxy, for her part, teaches that Church Infallibility does not mean every single priest or individual church is perfect, but that rather the Church entire, with her teachings, is perfect. There may have existed throughout time priests who hated Jews, blacks, or various ethnicities, but the Church has never embraced such hateful ideology.

There was an early heresy around Saint Augustine’s time known as Donatism, which taught that the holy mysteries carried out by the clergy were entirely dependent on the holiness of the clergy - ie. if you were baptized and it turned out the priest doing the baptism at the time had some moral problems in his personal life, your baptism was not legit. The Church condemned this teaching because, first and foremost, the holy mysteries are carried out by God and are dependent on His will alone.

Oh you are a smart one!

I see why you turn this on to Donatism. I don’t blame you. Takes the heat off of SJC.

But, are you willing to say he had no influence on any of the bishops? Or the trickle down effect?

How do you account for Luther having/sharing his general feelings?

I think we both know why.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I see why you turn this on to Donatism. I don’t blame you. Takes the heat off of SJC.

I turned to Donatism to further explain the Orthodox concept of Church Infallibility because you were accusing all of Christendom of being corrupt due to a few church officials. There was no conspiracy to “take the heat off SJC.”

I would appreciate it if you would not jump to hasty conclusions. Sarcasm betrays lack of argumentation.

But, are you willing to say he had no influence on any of the bishops? Or the trickle down effect?

I have yet to see any evidence that it did. I therefore cannot deny something that does not exist.

How do you account for Luther having/sharing his general feelings?

Luther did not share the feelings of Chrysostom. Feel free to compare their beliefs giving direct quotations in comparison.

Although the relevance of these two men sharing views is lost on me.

Here, incidentally, is a post you may have missed (view especially the second link).

For those who haven’t read St John Chrysostom’s homilies on Judaizers you can read them here:

fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html

chrysostom.org/jews.html

Interesting reading.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I turned to Donatism to further explain the Orthodox concept of Church Infallibility

I can’t view this as anything more than tripe, unless I can see any reliable Jewish sources to agree to it.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

So, I am basically only stating that there was a lot of rubbish going on, and we can’t be harsh on Luther for that obvious fact.

The sins of others does not hide the sins of others - or, to put it more plainly, you can’t forgive a sin because others sin.

People are harsh on Luther because he wrote harsh words. When you write harsh words, you will become the subject of criticism.

Point taken. I think I should try to see this in a less closed minded way. I just don’t see why Luther is getting all the heat, when he was far from being the first one to think like he did. I am sorry, but your link to the “defense” of SJC, is not backed up by Jews. I won’t accept a site that says they are not anti catholic by say, the Westboro Baptists.

That is an extreme example. It is with the presupposition that the authors of the website - one of which quotes all of Chrysostom’s writings - are antisemitic.

You also create a scenario and demand we fulfill it: unless something is backed by Jews, you will not read it nor accept it as fact. Why should it? I could quote Roman Catholics who I believe represent the Orthodox opinion well but are not necessarily backed up by the Orthodox Church. That doesn’t make their opinion right or wrong.

Furthermore, Judaism today has many factions and people of varying beliefs, as do most religions. So what “Jews” are to be expected to back up such beliefs? There are Jews who believe Islam to be a good religion and others to believe it to be antisemitic in nature - therefore pro-Muslims and anti-Muslims can find plenty of Jews to quote from (as Nadir Ahmed did in his debate with Sam Shamoun). I can also find Jews who believe the pope during WWII was a supporter of Jews, while others think he was antisemitic - again, finding people of a certain opinion to back yourself up proves nothing.

Making the bold declaration that you won’t accept an opinion based on a subjective condition is hardly open-minded.

You will simply say they are out of context. I will counter, when did the actions against the Jews in the papal states occur (you will no doubt, at this point, wash your hands of it and say it is not an eastern orthodox problem) but, then I ask, why has your church not said anything about or stopped it? Or even tried to?

You have essentially told me you can’t present any arguments. If you’re going to accuse Luther and Chrysostom of being equally antisemitic, show me how. Otherwise, you have nothing to present to us. Repeating an argument without demonstrating it is not a real argument.

How can the relevance be lost on you? Martin Luther would have certainly been aware of SJC’s writings. yes?

Actually, he hated John Chrysostom, and most of the Greek Fathers. Other Reformers like John Calvin were more aware of the Eastern Church, but Martin Luther had mostly bad things to say about them. He had been an Augustinian monk, and as such he only knew really of Saint Augustine’s writings.

I will not presume to criticize too closely the writings of the Fathers, seeing they are received at the church, and have great applause, for then I should be held an apostate; but whoso reads Chrysostom, will find he digresses from the chief points, and proceeds to other matter, saying nothing, or very little, of what pertains to the business.[Martin Luther, *Table Talk, No. 525]

This doesn’t show Martin Luther taking to heart anything Saint John Chrysostom said. Again, if you can prove otherwise, quote the relevant material and present your argument, not shrugging off any point with, “Well you’ll do this, so I won’t respond!”

I can’t view this as anything more than tripe, unless I can see any reliable Jewish sources to agree to it.

Again, that’s creating a scenario and demanding we fulfill it. It’s similar to the common (but just as weak) Muslim argumentation that they won’t believe Christ is divine unless He says the exact words “I am God.”

 

[StrawberryJam]

:blackeye:

Okay Byzantine Wolf, you got me thinking more about this.

Give me some time to digest all this okay? I can be hasty at times.

I’ll give this more thought.

Thank you for explaining more. I will look into this more now. I just get upset when a low ladder guy gets the blame for upper management problems. KWIM?

I think there was more going on for him to end up that way. That’s all.

Peace