Martin Luther

[Byzantine_Wolf]

It’s all right

I actually feel sorry for Luther because he was clearly, as shown in historical records, not in the right frame of mind at the time. He was suffering from practically every disease known to man at the time, and his writings near the end of his life show a man whose mind was slipping. I’m not excusing what he wrote, but again, I try to keep everything in context.

 

[StrawberryJam]

It’s all right

I actually feel sorry for Luther because he was clearly, as shown in historical records, not in the right frame of mind at the time. He was suffering from practically every disease known to man at the time, and his writings near the end of his life show a man whose mind was slipping. I’m not excusing what he wrote, but again, I try to keep everything in context.

His culpability? Or Conscup… something, must have been lessened a great deal right?
Just trying to see why the laurel leaf was not given to him, considering what you just said.

Liz

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

His culpability? Or Conscup… something, must have been lessened a great deal right?
Just trying to see why the laurel leaf was not given to him, considering what you just said.

Liz

You forget you’re on a Roman Catholic forum. Any one named Martin Luther without the words “King, Jr.” after it is going to not be treated kindly.

 

[StrawberryJam]

You forget you’re on a Roman Catholic forum. Any one named Martin Luther without the words “King, Jr.” after it is going to not be treated kindly.

uch:

LOL!!!

Good talking to you BW.

See you around!

I hope.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

See you around!

I hope.

You hope? Uh oh. calls for police protection

Ditto

 

[StrawberryJam]

You hope? Uh oh. calls for police protection

Ditto

You know what is funny? I have Martin Luther to thank for meeting you here.
I wonder if that is ironic, or if it is something for everyone to think about.

I mean, like him or not, he is someone that we all look to in history of christian beliefs.
He was not considered a bad guy because he gave a bad homily, (read the threads about that stuff in liturgy and scaraments, and you will be blown away)
He was not one that by today’s standards you would dislike in terms of what kind of a service he would have for the most part? Correct?

I think he loved the church, from what I read about him. I think he really loved it so much, he actually thought he could help it by challenging the heirarcy to stop wrongdoings.
And, I think they also respected him enough to not kill him outright. They could not have suddenly been taken by surprise.

I just feel for this man, I lament the struggle he went through especially when I read about people in this day and age complaining about silly things going on and it does not compare to simony, or the poor paying for indulgences, or the other wrongdoings in scale or scope. And they say we have progressed.?
Really?
Still questioning Mother Theresa, and JPII and so much more of what I classify as small potatoes (maybe wrongly) but,
there were HUGE theological things happening way before all that. Before the schism of the east/west.

Where was the love then?

The bisop of rome was supposed to preside in love.

But, it is possible he was dead at the time of the bull?

I dunno. It is confusing depending on the sources you read.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I think Martin Luther would have done good if he had gone the route of Desidarius Erasmus and supported reform from within, which he did initially (he and Erasmus even got along at that time). Perhaps, although I don’t wish this, it would have been good had he been martyred like some Church Fathers were. Sometimes the plant of reform and edification is watered with the blood of the righteous.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I think Martin Luther would have done good if he had gone the route of Desidarius Erasmus and supported reform from within, which he did initially (he and Erasmus even got along at that time). Perhaps, although I don’t wish this, it would have been good had he been martyred like some Church Fathers were. Sometimes the plant of reform and edification is watered with the blood of the righteous.

Never thought of that. Gives a new twist to the old saying only the good die young.

 

[Ginger2]

Yes, he is a Church Father, but as explained earlier his writings were not antisemitic. …

(giggle) excuse me. That just slipped out.

 

[Ginger2]

…as explained earlier his writings were not antisemitic. …

“Are they not inveterate murderers, destroyers, men possessed by the devil? Jews are impure and impious, and their synagogue is a house of prostitution, a lair of beasts, a place of shame and ridicule, the domicile of the devil, as is the soul of the Jew. As a matter of fact, Jews worship the devil; their rites are criminal and unchaste; their religion a disease; their synagogue an assembly of crooks, a den of thieves, a cavern of devils, an abyss of perdition!” - SJC

"God hates the Jews, and on Judgment Day will say to those who sympathize with them: “Depart from Me, for you have had intercourse with My murderers!” Flee, then, from their assemblies, fly from their houses, and hold their synagogue in hatred and aversion.” - SJC



The RC has been terribly antisemitic over the ages. But their hatred for ML seems to blind them to reality.

“How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the spec that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the spec that is in your brother’s eye.” "Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into a ditch? - Luke 6

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

“Are they not inveterate murderers, destroyers, men possessed by the devil? Jews are impure and impious, and their synagogue is a house of prostitution, a lair of beasts, a place of shame and ridicule, the domicile of the devil, as is the soul of the Jew. As a matter of fact, Jews worship the devil; their rites are criminal and unchaste; their religion a disease; their synagogue an assembly of crooks, a den of thieves, a cavern of devils, an abyss of perdition!” - SJC

"God hates the Jews, and on Judgment Day will say to those who sympathize with them: “Depart from Me, for you have had intercourse with My murderers!” Flee, then, from their assemblies, fly from their houses, and hold their synagogue in hatred and aversion.” - SJC

Can you please provide a direct citation, ie. to the source from where those quotes come from

In addition, something you may have missed from this link:

What is unfortunate is that this misuse of the saint’s words is based significantly on a mistranslation of the title of the sermons, translated as Against the Jews, rather than Against the Judaizers, which is the rendering the most up to date translations are now using. By this adjustment, sermons intended by the saint to be polemics against those in 4th century Antioch who would try to Judaize the Christians are being read as racist invective.

 

[Peter_J]

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

The following has been quoted and praised by a number of different posters on CAF. In terms of this thread, I’d put it in the “miscellaneous” category:

“Telling Catholics that they aren’t perfect makes as much sense as telling fish they’re wet. We know already. Move on.”

• Fr. Philip Neri Powell, O.P., Ph.D., Church is not Wal-Mart (UPDATED).

 

[Ginger2]

Can you please provide a direct citation, ie. to the source from where those quotes come from

From SJC writings. Since I did not reference the specific comment and don’t care to search for it again, I’ll give you another just as damning:

John Chrysostom: Adversus Judaeos
HOMILY I
II
(6) Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: “But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them”.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

John Chrysostom: Adversus Judaeos
HOMILY I
II
(6) Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: “But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them”.

That’s not damning at all, though it can certainly be taken the wrong way. If you read the passage before it, Chrysostom discusses the sins of the Jewish people past as spoken by the prophets, saying, “Another prophet hinted at this when he said: ‘Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer’. And still another called the Jews ‘an untamed calf’.” These are “the beasts” fit for killing, because they are useless for work. Chrysostom is comparing the theology and empty rituals of the Judaizers to those animals, not the Jewish people entire. The rest of the passage (which you left out) goes into further detail about the useless fasting that even the prophets of the Old Testament condemned. Again, these are matters of theology and ritual, not race.

Also, I’ll repost what I put before, which also spoke on the subject but seemed to be ignored.

In addition, something you may have missed from this link:

What is unfortunate is that this misuse of the saint’s words is based significantly on a mistranslation of the title of the sermons, translated as Against the Jews, rather than Against the Judaizers, which is the rendering the most up to date translations are now using. By this adjustment, sermons intended by the saint to be polemics against those in 4th century Antioch who would try to Judaize the Christians are being read as racist invective.

If you read the entire set of homilies, he makes reference to Jews who were going into churches and attempting to bring Christians to practice Jewish rites, or to submit to the Law and forget the rest of what Christianity meant. Again, his reference to Jews is on a theological nature, not race. It therefore cannot be taken as antisemitic, which refers to the Semitic race (which includes Arabs as well).

Furthermore, your comment, “The RC has been terribly antisemitic over the ages. But their hatred for ML seems to blind them to reality,” has two flaws:

1. 
   *]The beliefs of one saint, antisemitic or not, do not constitute the entire belief system of one Church. To my knowledge no one has claimed Lutheranism nor Protestantism is in and of itself antisemitic, only that Martin Luther was an antisemite.
   *]To bring up other antisemitic church officials when the topic is Martin Luther is actually irrelevant. Even if Saint John Chrysostom had been worse than Adolf Hitler, that doesn’t hide the flaws in Martin Luther’s beliefs. In fact, to divert the topic of discussion from the subject to something semi-related but irrelevant is a logical fallacy known as a non-sequitor.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

You forget you’re on a Roman Catholic forum.

A Catholic forum.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

A Catholic forum.

Oops, sorry. My mistake. Force of habit.

 

[Contarini]

Hi! I’m something of an aspiring author and I’d like to write a historical fiction book about Martin Luther. I just recently saw the movie Luther and, while it was a good movie, I found it to be inaccurate. The more I hear about what Luther believed and what kind of person he was, the more I am confused. So I decided to look into his works and the works of the Church concerning him. The problem is, I haven’t the least idea of where to start. A little help please???

The best starting biography is still Roland Bainton, Here I Stand. I have a lot of problems with it, but it gives you the basics (with a strong liberal Protestant slant, unfortunately).

Heiko Oberman, Luther: Man between God and the Devil_ is the most insightful biography in my opinion (disclaimer: I studied with a student of Oberman’s, so I’m biased in his favor). Oberman also has a Protestant bias, though he’s a lot more complex and less predictable than Bainton or Brecht. Oberman emphasizes the ways Luther differs from later Protestantism (whether liberal, confessional, or evangelical), and stresses his medieval background and his apocalyptic beliefs. One can argue with Oberman, but generally I think it’s safe to say that his picture of Luther is the least anachronistic and probably also the most imaginatively interesting (important for a novelist) that you will find anywhere.

Martin Brecht’s three-volume biography is the most in-depth. It will give you lots of detail (with a strong Lutheran bias).

If you are really interested in understanding Luther, don’t start with Catholic perspectives. There are good Catholic books on Luther, but they tend to be fairly in-depth and advanced–you need the basics first.

There’s a 56-volume version of Luther’s works available from Fortress Press (they are going to add another 20 volumes or so). I’d encourage you to start with the volumes headed “Career of the Reformer.” That will give you some of Luther’s basic works showing an outline of how he became such an important figure in Christian history.

Edwin

 

[Ginger2]

*]The beliefs of one saint, antisemitic or not, do not constitute the entire belief system of one Church.

POPE PAUL IV, “Cum Nibis Absurdum” “Since it is completely senseless …”] (July 14, 1555) Print E-mail
Written by Pope Paul IV

Laws and ordinances to be followed by Jews living in the Holy See [decreed by the] Bishop [of Rome, the Pope] Paul, servant of the servants of God, for future recollection.

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, they manage to claim superiority: we, who recently learned that these very Jews have insolently invaded Rome from a number of the Papal States, territories and domains, to the extent that not only have they mingled with Christians (even when close to their churches) and wearing no identifying garments, but to dwell in homes, indeed, even in the more noble [dwellings] of the states, territories and domains in which they lingered, conducting business from their houses and in the streets and dealing in real estate; they even have nurses and housemaids and other Christians as hired servants. :tsktsk: And they would dare to perpetrate a wide variety of other dishonorable things, contemptuous of the name Christian. Considering that the Church of Rome tolerates these very Jews (evidence of the true Christian faith) and to this end [we declare]: that they, won over by the piety and kindness of the See, should at long last recognize their erroneous ways, and should lose no time in seeing the true light of the catholic faith, and thus to agree that while they persist in their errors, realizing that they are slaves because of their deeds, whereas Christians have been freed through our Lord God Jesus Christ, and that it is unwarranted for it to appear that the sons of free women serve the sons of maids. [Therefore,]

1.  Desiring firstly, as much as we can with [the help of] God, to beneficially provide, by this [our decree] that will forever be in force, we ordain that for the rest of time, in the City as well as in other states, territories and domains of the Church of Rome itself, all Jews are to live in only one [quarter] to which there is only one entrance and from which there is but one exit, and if there is not that capacity [in one such quarter, then], in two or three or however many may be enough; [in any case] they should reside entirely side by side in designated streets and be thoroughly separate from the residences of Christians, [This is to be enforced] by our authority in the City and by that of our representatives in other states, lands and domains noted above.

2.  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.

3.  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.

4.  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.

5.  They may not work or have work done on Sundays or on other public feast days declared by the Church.

6.  Nor may they incriminate Christians in any way, or promulgate false or forged agreements.

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

8.  And they cannot use other than Latin or Italian words in short-term account books that they hold with Christians, and, if they should use them, such records would not be binding on Christians [in legal proceedings].

9.  Moreover, these Jews are to be limited to the trade of rag-picking, or "cencinariae" (as it is said in the vernacular), and they cannot trade in grain, barley or any other commodity essential to human welfare.

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

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

 

[Ginger2]

1.  And they are to close their [loan] accounts entirely every thirty days; should fewer than thirty days elapse, they shall not be counted as an entire month, but only as the actual number of days, and furthermore, they will terminate the reckoning as of this number of days and not for the term of an entire month. In addition, they are prohibited from selling [goods put up as] collateral, put up as temporary security for their money, unless [such goods were] put up a full eighteen months prior to the day on which such [collateral] would be forfeit; at the expiration of the aforementioned number of months, if Jews have sold a security deposit of this sort, they must sign over all money in excess of the principal of the loan to the owner of the collateral.

2.  And the statutes of states, territories and domains (in which they have lived for a period of time) concerning primacy of Christians, are to be adhered to and followed without exception.

3.  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.

4.  [This will be in effect] notwithstanding opposing decrees and apostolic rules, and regardless of any tolerance whatever or special rights and dispensation for these Jews [granted] by any Roman Pontiff prior to us and the aforementioned See or of their legates, or by the courts of the Church of Rome and the clergy of the Apostolic courts, or by other of their officials, no matter their import and form, and with whatever (even with repeated derogations) and with other legally valid sub-clauses, and erasures and other decrees, even [those that are] "motu proprio" and from "certain knowledge" and have been repeatedly approved and renewed. By this document, even if, instead of their sufficient derogation, concerning them and their entire import, special, specific, expressed and individual, even word for word, moreover, not by means of general, even important passages, mention, or whatever other expression was favored, or whatever exquisite form had to be retained, matters of such import, and, if word for word, with nothing deleted, would be inserted into them in original form in the present document holding that rather than being sufficiently expressed, those things that would stay in effect in full force by this change alone, we specially and expressly derogate, as well as any others [that might be] contrary to them.

Declared at St. Mark’s, Rome, in the one thousand five hundred fifty fifth year of the incarnation of Our Lord, one day prior to the Ides of July, in the first year of our Papacy.

…only that Martin Luther was an antisemite.

And you think this is a realistic view???

… to divert the topic of discussion from the subject to something semi-related but irrelevant is a logical fallacy known as a non-sequitor

While the title reads: Martin Luther, this was not intended as a ML bashing party. It was intended to help a writer find **accurate ** information on ML to write an historical Fiction book.

To me it looks as tho Catholics began a rally of "Hooray! Another chance to bash ML and present a one-sided version.

As I stated before an historical fiction book is supposed to be accurate to history. It is not a book sharing biased personal views. As Marysgirls investigate and researches history, she will be ethically obligated to present the facts accurately. I saw no one mention ML’s favorable writings toward the Jews. Only the info certain Catholics want to be portrayed about him.

This thread is about writing a book and ML just happens to be the specific subject of the book.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

I believe I have already said this, but the best place to start studying the culture of the specific time period.

Study the connection between politics and religion.

Read information about all the main characters from different viewpoints.

Read their actual wrtings, not just excerpts, but read the actual letters and sermons, etc.

Only after this extensive research is done will a writer be able to create a believable fictional character. This was stated as Marysgirls goal - an Historical Fiction book.

If however, the point of the book is simply to share personal views about ML, then all the above is an awful lot of work to go thru since only the facts supporting the authors view will be used anyway.

Ginger