Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[JonNC]

At the very least it must call into question the credibility of Luther’s view on other matters.

Who said this?

“Could [the Jews] but drown all Christians in one spoon, they would eagerly do it.”

Luther? Nope
Johann Eck!! So, by your standard, all the things negative that Eck said about Luther are called into question because of Eck’s clear anti-semitism.

I offer a Lenten prayer:
Lord, we Christians of all communions are aware of the anti-Jewish hatred that has infected Chrstianity for centuries. We confess that this evil has tarnished the name “Christian”, and has hurt the Jewish people, who are children of yours. We look to the guidance of the Holy Spirit to protect us from hatred of any of you children.
Amen

 

[SedesDomi]

Johann Eck!! So, by your standard, all the things negative that Eck said about Luther are called into question because of Eck’s clear anti-semitism.

Who the heck is Eck?

 

[JonNC]

Who the heck is Eck?

A leading Catholic theologian/apologist of the reformation era.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Eck

Jon

 

[FindingTruth]

Picture this - you meet someone who spouts anti-semtism, encourages you to take two wives and tells you to blatantly lie to anybody who finds out about it (Luther to Philip of Hessa). What value would you then place on his biblical views? I would personally be a little sceptical.

 

[FindingTruth]

No idea who John Eck is and would like to know more about what doctrinal influences he has brought on the Church.

 

[bradwill911]

I think it is important that we know as much as we can about a persons character before we make judgements about whether he is fit to lead and preach. Many people for example do not realise that Luther (at least towards the end of his life) was shockingly ant-semitic. In his book “On the Jews and their Lies” Luther (1540s) makes some disgusting ascertations. Luther suggests that the German people should:

1. set fire to synagogues and schools
2. burn houses
3. confiscate all Jewish religious writings
   4)forbid Rabbis from teaching
   5)make the Jews slaves of germans

I personally find the above remarks outrageous and could never imagine that a person who could espouse them could be permitted to preach let alone help forumlate theology.

I honestly did not know that (I heard about his antisemitism this week for the first time). That being said, I think that just makes him a sinner, like the rest of us. I personally think his sins are a separate issue from his theology (just my humble opinion).

 

[josie_L]

Could you inform us as to which of these ideas were new with Luther, and which were common opinions in his day?

Given the recent flap over Bishop Williamson, I think those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The “blood libel” was still being promoted by Vatican-sponsored periodicals in the early 20th century. Catholics don’t have a shining record here, to say the least. Yet I for one do not think that this discredits everything Catholics have to say. It would be nice to see Catholics extend the same courtesy.

Edwin

Well, since Luther was basically at the fore of the reformation, claiming the Whore of Babylon, that would be us Catholics, and that the anti-christ, that would be our Pope, was so wicked that he had to reform us, by creating his own church/denomination, it’s pretty hypocritical of him to espouse such hatred, one would even say venom for Jews. Hence, the reason that confusedTim questioned his authority (on biblical and other such matters).

He had a valid point in stating what he did, for Luther pretty much single- handedly developed lutheran doctrines on faith and morals.

As for Bishop Williamson, the Pope never knew of his opinion on the Shoah, until after the excommunication was lifted, therefore you cannot hold him responsible. In fact, the Pope is doing his best to ensure that this wayward Bishop understands that if he wishes full communion he will have to do away with such prejudices.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Who said this?Luther? Nope
Johann Eck!! So, by your standard, all the things negative that Eck said about Luther are called into question because of Eck’s clear anti-semitism.

A telling comparison can be made by consulting the way the Catholic Encyclopedia evaluates the anti-Jewish remarks of Johann Eck and Martin Luther. The Catholic Encyclopedia highly praises Eck: “He was the most distinguished theologian of the time in Germany, the most scholarly and courageous champion of the Catholic Faith. Frank and even in disposition, he was also inspired by a sincere love of truth; but he showed none the less an intense self-consciousness and the jovial bluntness of speech which characterized the men of that day.” Interestingly, the Catholic Encyclopedia makes no mention of Eck’s anti-Jewish writings.

However, in their entry on “Luther” they point out, “It was while in this agony of body and torture of mind, that his unsurpassable and irreproducible coarseness attained its culminating point of virtuosity in his anti-Semitic and antipapal pamphlets." In the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on the “History of the Jews,” no mention is made of Johann Eck. However, of Luther they point out, “Luther himself, towards the end of his life, was [the Jews] greatest opponent,” and, “Luther, on the other hand, required their absolute expulsion. . . . It was reserved for him to place Jews on a level with Gypsies. . . . He was the cause of their being expelled by Protestant princes”

I submit that many Roman Catholics evaluate Luther’s anti-Semitism the same way the Catholic Encyclopedia does. The Catholic Encyclopedia fails to document that one of the leading theologians of the sixteenth century was blatantly hostile towards the Jews, but rather characterizes him to be “inspired by a sincere love of truth.” I’ve met many Roman Catholics in discussion who point out that Johann Eck defeated Luther in debate, and was a champion for the Roman Catholic Church. How many of them would dismiss the entirety of Eck’s work because he was blatantly anti-Semitic?

 

[ConfusedTim]

I have little information about John Eck - perhaps you could explain what teachings of his are currently used or have been used by the church? If he was the anti semite that you suggest i would definetly be wary of anything that he has done. What’s that old saying about no good can come of evil.

On the subject of Luther he has been proven to be both anti semitic and as has been mentioned above rather choosey in terms of his morals - e.g encouraging Prince Philip of Hessa to commit bigamy and to lie about it if caught.

I am sorry if it offends you but he just does not seem like the type of charachter to be trusted on important matters of theology.

 

[IrishJoe]

I always wonder why some catholics are quick to point out the anti-semitism of Luther but apparently overlook the anti-semitism of those in their own fold.

Pot kettle black ?

Splinter eye plank ?

whats worse Luthor whining about Jews a few hundred years ago or a Catholic bishop living in 2009 denying the holocaust?

 

[Contarini]

No idea who John Eck is and would like to know more about what doctrinal influences he has brought on the Church.

I’m not sure how significant he was in the long run, but he was the leading person defending Catholicism against Luther in the early years. The point is not to single Eck out. The point is that Luther’s views were common to him and his Catholic opponents. He learned them the same way he learned most of the other things he believed (like the authority of Scripture and the fact that we are saved by God’s grace in Jesus), from the Catholic Church. He should be held responsible for the new things he introduced into the Catholic faith (whether good or bad), not for the things he took for granted from his cultural and religious heritage.

Vicious anti-Judaism was all over the place in early 16th-century Germany. It’s unjust to hold Luther uniquely responsible.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Well, since Luther was basically at the fore of the reformation, claiming the Whore of Babylon, that would be us Catholics, and that the anti-christ, that would be our Pope, was so wicked that he had to reform us, by creating his own church/denomination, it’s pretty hypocritical of him to espouse such hatred, one would even say venom for Jews.

First of all, Luther did not think that Catholicism needed to be reformed because of moral corruption. He thought it needed to be reformed because it had gotten the Gospel wrong. And secondly, obviously Luther didn’t think that his views on Jews were wicked. So no inconsistency. The inconsistency would lie in those Protestants who would claim that Catholicism was intolerably bad while Luther and his followers were pure and holy. When you find such Protestants, please smite them (metaphorically and rhetorically) with my blessing. Shucks, let me know and I’ll join in.

But this is not a general argument against Protestantism. To discredit Protestantism, you have to show more than that Luther was as bad in certain regards as many of his Catholic contemporaries. You have to show that the specific doctrines you condemn us for holding are wrong, and that the specific practices we would have to give up in order to become Catholic are incompatible with the Gospel. Bashing people who lived 500 years ago is a fun diversion, but it doesn’t help resolve the real issues.

Hence, the reason that confusedTim questioned his authority (on biblical and other such matters).

When you find someone saying “this must be true because Luther said it,” then by all means question this.

As for Bishop Williamson, the Pope never knew of his opinion on the Shoah, until after the excommunication was lifted, therefore you cannot hold him responsible.

I don’t. I hold traditional Catholicism–and more broadly traditional cultural Christianity–responsible. My point was that Williamson is a holdover who voices (with perhaps a bit more bitterness and anger precisely because there aren’t many who agree with him any ore) things that would have been fairly common opinions among Catholic clergy about 100 years ago–maybe even 50 years ago. Not universal, mind you; not necessarily official. But common.

So I repeat: those who live in glass houses (i.e., a Catholic tradition characterized by bitter hostility toward and persecution of Jews) shouldn’t throw stones at Luther.

Edwin

 

[ConfusedTim]

Pot kettle black ?

Splinter eye plank ?

whats worse Luthor whining about Jews a few hundred years ago or a Catholic bishop living in 2009 denying the holocaust?

I think you miss the point - everyone in the Cathlolic church that i have spoken to thinks that the the holocaust denier is quite possibly derranged. Every organisation has their share of peopel who seem to function at a normal level for most of the time but who actually have deep seated problems and thios happens whetehr that orgainsation be a business, sport or religion.

 

[Contarini]

I think you miss the point - everyone in the Cathlolic church that i have spoken to thinks that the the holocaust denier is quite possibly derranged. Every organisation has their share of peopel who seem to function at a normal level for most of the time but who actually have deep seated problems and thios happens whetehr that orgainsation be a business, sport or religion.

I see this kind of argument over and over on this board, and it basically boils down to this:

When Catholics do or say bad stuff, it is just because people are sinful and there are always going to be bad apples in every barrel.

When Protestants do the same stuff, it’s suddenly of Immense Importance.

Of course people of all perspectives fall into this fallacy. It’s not unique to Catholics, but since this is a Catholic board it’s Catholics who do it most often here.

Edwin

 

[ralphinal]

I see this kind of argument over and over on this board, and it basically boils down to this:

When Catholics do or say bad stuff, it is just because people are sinful and there are always going to be bad apples in every barrel.

When Protestants do the same stuff, it’s suddenly of Immense Importance.

Of course people of all perspectives fall into this fallacy. It’s not unique to Catholics, but since this is a Catholic board it’s Catholics who do it most often here.

Edwin

Edwin,
Would it be fair to say “X” committed this sin and it influenced his theology in this way?

For example, let’s say that Luther was a big advocate of sex with frogs. Had Luther said that Sex with Frogs was acceptable and even required, would it be fair to bring it up?

 

[JonNC]

Edwin,
Would it be fair to say “X” committed this sin and it influenced his theology in this way?

For example, let’s say that Luther was a big advocate of sex with frogs. Had Luther said that Sex with Frogs was acceptable and even required, would it be fair to bring it up?

Ralph,
I know this was to Edwin, so I hope you don’t mind my response.

Yes, it is fair to bring it up, so long as it is brought up in historical perspective. IOW, Luther thought sex with frogs was ok, and many others of that time in history, including Catholic theologians, thought the same. In fact, it was accepted in many corners.
No, it is not fair to bring it up without the background historical point that it was widely accepted by Catholics, too, simply to bash Luther.

To our modern senses, anti-Judaism (and anti-semitism) are just wrong, and our modern sense of things, at least on this issue, is correct. I suspect if Luther, Eck, and other otherwise good Christians of that era were alive today, they would not hold to those postiions. Luther was neither saint nor monster, Eck was neither saint nor monster. Both were Christians, and sinners, and products of their time.

Jon

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Could you inform us as to which of these ideas were new with Luther, and which were common opinions in his day?

Given the recent flap over Bishop Williamson, I think those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The “blood libel” was still being promoted by Vatican-sponsored periodicals in the early 20th century. Catholics don’t have a shining record here, to say the least. Yet I for one do not think that this discredits everything Catholics have to say. It would be nice to see Catholics extend the same courtesy.

Edwin

It would be nice - but it won’t happen on the Net. The real world, where most people live, is another matter. Lutherans are at least dismayed by this kind of thing - but when is the vicious Jew-bashing of Chrysostom going to affect his status as a Saint ? Luther’s standing does not depend on his personal holiness - but Chrysostom’s does; so Lutherans are in a less embarrassing position: Rome is stuck with Chrysostom, because it can’t absolve him of Jew-bashing if it condemns Luther for Jew-bashing; not unless it is prepared to have two moral standards, or else to admit it is not infallible in canonisations. This is what comes of trying too hard to be the Church That Is Always Right.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It’s also documented that many priests in Italy were part of the pipeline to help Nazis escape trial. The man who hid Adolf Eichmann in Genoa was a priest. Eichmann loved him so much he named his youngest son after him. It is even known that after some Jews returned to Poland after WWII they still faced pogroms in their villages, and priests were known to have instigated them.

No one is denying the hatred Jews have faced from Christians, at least I am not. But it gets old hearing about Luther when the hatred of others (by this I mean Catholics) is ignored. Besides, Luther doesn’t speak for all of us protesters, so people need to quit asserting that we are all following an anti-semite. If I said that since SOME Crusaders slaughtered Jews that must mean that all Catholics are guilty people would call for my head and for me to be banned! But I’m not going to do that, EVER, because it would be unfair and dishonet. Everyone needs to be honest and up-front about the history of Christianity, but somewhere along the way it needs to be pointed out that no other group in history has sought to rectify their sins against the Jews like Christians have.

What “rectification” is this ? And how can they ***possibly ***be rectified ? Can Christians raise all the dead Jews they have butchered, & unsay all the lies & libels they have uttered against them ? If there were any justice, Christians would be made to pay for what they have done to them. The “religion of love” has no sense of shame or decency; it should not exist any longer, not after such wickedness. Centuries of Christian hatred of Jews led to the gas-chambers - how can that be forgiven, or “rectified” ? ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

i think you mean “assertions”… (Sorry, I’m an English teacher… if only in my own mind )…

actually, he did and said even worse things… Have you ever read The Facts About Luther? The author quotes his (luther’s) own words and also other Protestants who have studied him… so there’s no way you can say “Well, a Catholic priest wrote that book so what do you expect”? or something like that…

Except that later Catholics, such as Joseph Lortz, have done just that.​

I believe Luther was possessed… just my opiniion from what I’ve read…

The drawback here is that the “assertion postulating possession” can be used against a poster’s position as well as for it; & it is not empirically verifiable. So a poster who suggests Luther was possessed, can be answered by suggesting, for instance, that Catholicism was possessed: the impossibility of testing this kind of assertion makes it useless, as well offensive. That’s why appeals to arguments of this kind are useless for historical study; which is why they are not made. And if “Satandunnit” can be an explanation for one thing, it can be explanation for anything - its use then becomes limited only by the sympathies, & the conscience, of the user. If Luther was possessed, so may George Washington or Dubya have been, or absolutely anyone whom one cares to name: the impossibility of testing such ideas makes it impossible to be sure they are not true.​

The judgement that “Satandunnit”, like the judgement that “Goddunnit”, belongs to theology - not to historical study.

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph,
I know this was to Edwin, so I hope you don’t mind my response.

Yes, it is fair to bring it up, so long as it is brought up in historical perspective. IOW, Luther thought sex with frogs was ok, and many others of that time in history, including Catholic theologians, thought the same. In fact, it was accepted in many corners.
No, it is not fair to bring it up without the background historical point that it was widely accepted by Catholics, too, simply to bash Luther.

To our modern senses, anti-Judaism (and anti-semitism) are just wrong, and our modern sense of things, at least on this issue, is correct. I suspect if Luther, Eck, and other otherwise good Christians of that era were alive today, they would not hold to those postiions. Luther was neither saint nor monster, Eck was neither saint nor monster. Both were Christians, and sinners, and products of their time.

Jon

I would accept that. I would say,a dn I think that you would agree, that it is only an issue when it sticks out from the group AND it influences his theology.

Another not true example. Say Luther was homosexual (we know this is false). However, it is never seen as infulencing his theology. Why would it matter? It would not. Again, say it had. Then there is something to discuss. It would not fit the era or location AND it would be seen as affecting what he taught.

I think the anti-semitism is a red herrring. There are better things to talk about when attacking Luther.