Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[rcscwc]

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.

Verily, in Goa, India, catholics did:

1. set fire to Hindu temples and schools
2. burn houses
3. confiscate all Hindu religious writings
   4)forbid Hindu priests from teaching
   5)make the Hindus slaves of catholics

And much, much more.

Luther said only what catholics were already doing. Maybe he was inspired by these acts of kindness of catholics.

 

[caehalo2]

Ridiculous. You call someone the “vicar of Christ” and say that this person is infallible in matters of faith and morals. And then you claim that the errors and sins of such a person are irrelevant, while those of an extremely important Protestant theologian (whom no one regards as infallible) are vitally important? It makes no sense.

Edwin

Cromwell and the Act Of Settlement 1652
From the Celts to the Famine
By the time the struggle was over, almost two years on, one-quarter of the Catholic population was dead and those found wandering the country orphaned or dispossessed were sold into slavery in the West Indies.

The mass exodus continued for months, with many of the old and sick dying on the journey. Cromwell’s soldiers were paid off with gifts of appropriated land, and, remaining as settlers, constituted a permanent reminder of English injustice

The penal laws to the Act of Union
In 1641, 59 percent of the land in Ireland was owned by Catholics. In 1688, the figure was 22 percent, and by 1703 it was fourteen percent.The Protestant population, about one-tenth of the total

 

[TertiumQuid]

Some of what you missed concerning Luther and anti-semitism:

There was, according to Luther, no good or human quality about the Jews. “What is good in us Christians, they ignore; what is wrong in us Christians the Jews take advantage of.” “The breath of the Jews reeks.” “Their rabbis teach them that theft and robbery is no sin” (W53, 489).

This commentary and quote are found often, “There was, according to Luther, no good or human quality about the Jews. ‘What is good in us Christians, they ignore; what is wrong in us Christians the Jews take advantage of’” ‘The breath of the Jews reeks.’ ‘Their rabbis teach them that theft and robbery is no sin.’ ”(Peter F. Wiener, Martin Luther: Hitler’s Spiritual Ancestor).

“The breath of the Jews reeks” is probably another citation from On The Jews And Their Lies. Luther is in the middle of addressing Haggai 2. Luther is enraged against the practice of usury. In Haggai 2: 6-9, the phrase “consolation of the gentiles” Luther applies prophetically to the coming Messiah. He says the Jews apply it to the desires of the gentiles for gold, silver, and gems. Luther then says,

“You may ask why the Jews make this kind of gloss here. I will tell you. Their breath stinks with lust for the Gentiles’ gold and silver; for no nation under the sun is greedier than they were, still are, and always will be, as is evident from their accursed usury. So they comfort themselves that when the Messiah comes he will take the gold and silver of the whole world and divide it among them. Therefore, wherever they can quote Scripture to satisfy their insatiable greed, they do so outrageously. One is led to believe that God and his prophets knew of nothing else to prophesy than of ways and means to satisfy the bottomless greed of the accursed Jews with the Gentiles’ gold and silver." (LW 47:211.)

 

[Ockham]

I am not accusing you of having a double standard but it sure does appear that many Catholics here on the forum try to hard to prove the Cathlic church as the church that is not only infallible but always right.

Imagine…Catholics with a Catholic bias. The New York Times should investigate.

What is curious is why so many non-Catholics with anti-Church bias spend so much time on a Catholic website.

The Church is a two thousand year old institution. People who pull a page from its history book attempting to anything must do so with their own bias and agenda. For example, do the crimes committed by England colonials prove the nation state or monarchy invalid? What about crimes of the US military such as My Lai? Do Watergate, Lewinski, Rev. Wright prove the American presidency invalid?

If you want to learn about the Church then spend your time on the beauty, not the warts.

 

[Ginger2]

Some of what you missed concerning Luther and anti-semitism:
…

I didn’t “miss” anything. You totally missed the point.

So let me put it this way…

Mat 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

 

[bobregan]

C’mon, people (both Catholic and Protestant)…we’re re-aranging deck chairs on the Titanic here.

How about focusing on what Luther did believe? He had a great love and honor for Mary, the Mother of God.

He believed in the Real Prescence of Jesus in the Eucharist (although he did not go as far as transubstantiation.)

Let’s “type” our words here under what our purpose in life is: To know, love and serve God.

 

[kalt]

Shocking things everyone should know about Luther
or
Shocking things everyone should know about Catholic Popes

Talk about whatever topic you like, but the purpose of threads like this always end up being about bashing one person’s faith over another based on what someone did x many years ago.

It is not edifying for anyone.

If people are putting their faith in Martin Luther they are misguided just as much as any man who places his in any other man.

We are to place our faith in God alone.

So if you want to discuss certain Christians and why we should not place our faith in this one or the other one, that could be a profitable dialog.

But if it is simply to say, “my church father is better than yours…” you are wasting your time.

Psa 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, [nor] in the son of man, in whom [there is] no help.

Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed [be] the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

Isn’t following a Christian religion that was founded by a man, following that man and not Jesus? Luther didn’t restore the faith–he changed it.

He did Catholicism a big favor, though. He couldn’t have been more right about the abuses in the church. Unfortunately for himself and for the many who’ve followed him away from the Church, he was mentally ill and went too far.

Luther wasn’t all bad, as someone else said, but that doesn’t mean he was 100% right.

 

[kalt]

C’mon, people (both Catholic and Protestant)…we’re re-aranging deck chairs on the Titanic here.

How about focusing on what Luther did believe? He had a great love and honor for Mary, the Mother of God.

He believed in the Real Prescence of Jesus in the Eucharist (although he did not go as far as transubstantiation.)

Let’s “type” our words here under what our purpose in life is: To know, love and serve God.

If that’s what you want to discuss, “type” it here. You don’t need the rest of the community to stop talking about other things to do that.

 

[bobregan]

So again, let me throw these things out there. I am Catholic, and trying to be ecumenical, I am interested in a Protestant perspective:

Luther loved Mary and believed she had a special place in Christ’s life and has a special place in all of our lives…what do you think?

Luther did not think the Eucharist was “symbolic”, but was truly Christ’s Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity…what do ya think?

God Bless!

Bob

 

[gcnuss]

Luther wasn’t all bad, as someone else said, but that doesn’t mean he was 100% right.

Kalt,

This seems to be progress.

Of course, we Lutherans never contend that Luther was perfect. When it comes to his writings we have a lot of practice in separating the sheep from the goats. We appreciate the sheep very much – the goats we put aside. If we were to cast aside the good teachings of anyone who sinned, we would have no good teachings to follow.

 

[kalt]

ok - lets get to the nub of this - everyone agrees that Luther, like some Cathoic Popes was not god like to say the VERY least.Some people in the Catholic Church and some protestants church leaders have also not been Christ like.

But the point here is that the Luther, by inventing/promting new doctrine must claim that it came from God otherwise what value does it hold? If he is making these claims you then have to look at they type of man advancing the proposition to be able to judge its validity. When i look at Luther i just dont seem him in the light of a God inspired man? So for me sola scripture and the rest seems to be man made.

Similarly, if the Catholic Church is using any dogma that was advanced by an evil Pope then it too would be debunked in my mind. We dont want man made stuff - we only want holy spirit inspitred teachings.

Yup. As I said earlier, Luther formed a new (Christian) religion. So to compare him to a Pope or another Christian minister (Baptist, Lutheran, etc) who is simply leading a church is an inaccurate comparison. Popes and most minister don’t form new religions (Chritian or otherwise).

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus. If you want to compare Luther to someone in the Catholic Church, you have to compare him to the founder, Jesus.

If you want to compare Luther to other Catholics, you have to compare him only in his position in the Catholic Church. He wasn’t a pope, so to compare his role in the Catholic Church to a pope is also inaccurate.

Once he formed his own religion and changed doctrine, his role is comparable only to Jesus’, the founder of the Catholic Church.

I wonder if most people who form new Xian religions understand that they are doing the same thing. Maybe they do, and that’s what gives them a thrill. Maybe that’s what it’s all about for them.

 

[kalt]

Kalt,

This seems to be progress.

Of course, we Lutherans never contend that Luther was perfect. When it comes to his writings we have a lot of practice in separating the sheep from the goats. We appreciate the sheep very much – the goats we put aside. If we were to cast aside the good teachings of anyone who sinned, we would have no good teachings to follow.

But why would you follow the religion of someone who taught such awful things? He is the founder of that religion? So who are you (any of Luther’s followers) to pick and choose which things you will keep and which you will throw out?

 

[kalt]

Verily, in Goa, India, catholics did:

1. set fire to Hindu temples and schools
2. burn houses
3. confiscate all Hindu religious writings
   4)forbid Hindu priests from teaching
   5)make the Hindus slaves of catholics

And much, much more.

Luther said only what catholics were already doing. Maybe he was inspired by these acts of kindness of catholics.

Shouldn’t the founder of a new Xian religion have been inspired 100% by God? God alone?
How is it that the founder of a new Xian religion could teach such horrible things?

All human leaders are imperfect, but God is not imperfect, and Jesus is the founder of the Catholic Church. Popes, fallible humans, will run the Church imperfectly.

Luther, though, like Jesus, is the founder. Maybe we wouldn’t expect him to be 100% perfect in life (to be sinless), but shouldn’t his teachings be perfect!!!

 

[bobregan]

“Piggy backing” on kalt’s thoughts, Christ gave Peter the authority to start a church, which today is the Catholic Church. Where did Luther claim to get the authority from to start a church?

My point being, there were many Catholic Reformer’s at that time, that stayed though in the Catholic Church (I believe St. Catherine of Genoa was one. I think in the 1490’s she was the one that wrote a disreptuable Cardinal in Italy that she could “smell his stink, from a long distance.”). They wanted to clean up any human corruption in the Church, but believed totally in the doctrine’s of the Church. I think if Luther had abandoned “sola scriptura” and “sola fida” (which I think if they were trur doctrines, would have been accepted by the Apostles and the early Church father’s 1500 years before. They weren’t.)and remained in the Church and helped clean up some of the corruption in the Church at the time, he might have ended up a great saint.

 

[kalt]

"Originally Posted by Contarini
Ridiculous. You call someone the “vicar of Christ” and say that this person is infallible in matters of faith and morals. And then you claim that the errors and sins of such a person are irrelevant, while those of an extremely important Protestant theologian (whom no one regards as infallible) are vitally important? It makes no sense.

Edwin"

The popes didn’t found Catholicism. Luther founded Lutheranism, a new Christian religion. It is perfectly valid to compare Luther’s teachings to Christ’s. We have every expectation that a founded of a new religion will teach only 100% correct, divinely inspired things that are 100% in accordance with his God, Jesus.

Jesus was born and died a Jew. Luther condemns the Jews.

If Luther were merely the leader of a church,the comparison to a pope would be valid.

Luther, however, took is upon himself to form a new Xian religion.

We are correct in expecting, then, that his teachings will be a infallible as Jesus’ and the Popes’ official teachings (ex cathedra).

We aren’t saying that Luther had to be perfect in everything he ever did. But certainly, as the founder of a new religion, his religious views should be impeccable.

Remember, he was not a pope, a leader of a church. Just as Jesus founded the Catholic Church, Luther founded a new Christian church. There is a much higher standard applied. When you decide to make yourself god-like (In Christianity, it was God (Jesus) would founded the Church), forming a new religion, changing doctrine, leading people away from the church Jesus founded, you put the burden on yourself.

Jesus founded the Church. What man rightly believes that he has the right to form a new Christian religion?

 

[kalt]

“Piggy backing” on kalt’s thoughts, Christ gave Peter the authority to start a church, which today is the Catholic Church. Where did Luther claim to get the authority from to start a church?

My point being, there were many Catholic Reformer’s at that time, that stayed though in the Catholic Church (I believe St. Catherine of Genoa was one. I think in the 1490’s she was the one that wrote a disreptuable Cardinal in Italy that she could “smell his stink, from a long distance.”). They wanted to clean up any human corruption in the Church, but believed totally in the doctrine’s of the Church. I think if Luther had abandoned “sola scriptura” and “sola fida” (which I think if they were trur doctrines, would have been accepted by the Apostles and the early Church father’s 1500 years before. They weren’t.)and remained in the Church and helped clean up some of the corruption in the Church at the time, he might have ended up a great saint.

There have always been, and always will be. dissenting voices in the Church. As it should be.

There have been heresies from the beginning. Luther’s heresies weren’t the first or the last.

He was right about the abuses in the Church, but he was wrong about doctrine.

I think he felt the pull of arrogance and power, and couldn’t resist. It’s a common human fault.

 

[Ginger2]

Isn’t following a Christian religion that was founded by a man, following that man and not Jesus? Luther didn’t restore the faith–he changed it.

He did Catholicism a big favor, though. He couldn’t have been more right about the abuses in the church. Unfortunately for himself and for the many who’ve followed him away from the Church, he was mentally ill and went too far.

Luther wasn’t all bad, as someone else said, but that doesn’t mean he was 100% right.

I don’t know anyone who follows Luther. As Christians we are to follow Christ.

I agree, Luther brought about good change in the RC. It would have been better for both sides to be reconciled, however, the condition of the human heart made that impossible.

As for Luther changing the Christian faith, that is a fallacy. Luther kept all the same books, in the same order and category as Jerome’s Vulgate. Luther did not add words to Scriptures. Luther did not create new doctrines.

These are all lies created by Luther’s opponents that continue to be repeated.

It’s like the old saying, “If you tell the same lie enough times, people will eventually come to believe it."

I’ve been telling people I have a twenty-four inch waste for years, and I think a few are starting to come around.

Ginger

 

[halo3]

I don’t know anyone who follows Luther. As Christians we are to follow Christ.

I agree, Luther brought about good change in the RC. It would have been better for both sides to be reconciled, however, the condition of the human heart made that impossible.

As for Luther changing the Christian faith, that is a fallacy. Luther kept all the same books, in the same order and category as Jerome’s Vulgate. Luther did not add words to Scriptures. Luther did not create new doctrines.

These are all lies created by Luther’s opponents that continue to be repeated.

It’s like the old saying, “If you tell the same lie enough times, people will eventually come to believe it."

I’ve been telling people I have a twenty-four inch waste for years, and I think a few are starting to come around.

Ginger

Read Jews and thier Lies by Luther - Then explain the Irish Slaves

 

[reteeks21]

By stating that Luther started a “new religion” you are implying that it’s Christian position is on par with other “Christian” sects such as Mormonism, i.e., heretical. Is that a fair statement?

 

[Ockham]

As for Luther changing the Christian faith, that is a fallacy. Luther kept all the same books, in the same order and category as Jerome’s Vulgate. Luther did not add words to Scriptures. Luther did not create new doctrines.

Luther didn’t add scripture, but he changed the interpretation and application. Jesus gave one set of keys to heaven thus created one church. Luther created a second church, one that bears his name. Once that genie left the bottle many other churches were formed by dissenting men and women thereby adding to the collection of offshoots.

Numerous interpretations of scripture are made to justify the legitimacy of breaking away from Christ’s institution. The ego naturally tempts us with self grandeur and importance. It can be difficult to accept authority and conform to matters against our inclinations. However, to follow Christ requires an obedience to His words and actions.