Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[bobregan]

Once again, if anyone’s looking for great MP3 downloads on Catholic Apolgetics, go to www.biblechristiansociety.com. The download specifically on Apostolic authority and Papal infallibility is: biblechristiansociety.com/account/download?return=%2Fdownload%2Fmp3%2Fapostolic_authority_and_the_pope.mp3

These downloads are free (also free tapes and CD’s), and are excellent. They reference Scripture a lot in their explanations. They’re free, but the apologist is looking for a small donation to help cover costs. They’re worth it.

I’m being a little lazy here in referring to this web-site, but these are actually very in-depth discussions we’re having here. The Bible Christian Society does a great job in going deep in to scriptural explanations of Catholic teachings.

 

[bobregan]

Here are some great booklets from the Bible Christian Society They are outlines and study guides for the audio downloads):

biblechristiansociety.com/booklets.php

 

[Eternaly_Secure]

It’s gone midnight here in Northern Ireland, so I’m very tired.

I have come to the conclusion that Forums are not a place to spread the Gospel, because there is too much debating going on and a Christian is not supposed to debate.
So I’ll love and leave you with a few thoughts, which I should have done in the first place.

I’ll probably be banned with what I’m about to write anyway.

There is only one way to heaven and that is through the Lord Jesus Christ.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Going to a preist to forgive you of your sins and trusting the word of a mere man(the pope)will land you along with them in hell.

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. This verse does not apply to our earthly fathers, but it is the spiritual use of the term.

The pope is not the vicar of Christ.

The head of the church is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Clergy are unbiblical.

The extra biblical stuff that rcc teach about Mary is sin.
Mary like all of us was a sinner and she needed a Savior too.
**And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. **

She, but Joseph never had sexual relations with her untill Jesus was born.
Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And no the greek here does not mean cousins.

This is what you need to do. You need to realise that you are lost and that if you die tonight you will be in hell.
The Lord Jesus Christ went to calvary to suffer bleed and die for you and if you repent and trust the Lord Jesus and completely rely on him you will be saved.
No amount of good works will get you to heaven.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
A saved person is known by there works, but works dont saved us.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
**That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. **
All you have to do is repent and believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for you personally and you will be saved, it’s that simple.
Please pray to God to open up your understanding and show you the way of salvation, do it and mean it and he will show you.

I love you all and I pray that you will all (those that are not already) be saved and ready for eternity.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Eternaly Secure,

And, you know exactly who is and is not being addressed in these verses…

Some of the scriptures that people quote are not talking to people who are saved, but to those who have heard the truth and rejected it, this is what I mean about needing the Holy Spirit to understand scripture.

You just keep on humming that tune, buddy… Please understand, as you have just read from these many Scriptural Sources, it is not the song being sung by Matthew, Paul and the other inspired writers.

Christ did not promise the guidance of His Holy Spirit to everyone who may want It. Rather, He promised it to the Church that He founded on Peter (and, that would be the Catholic Church). That is the Church with the ***God Given Guarantee ***of no doctrinal error.

God bless,

 

[bobregan]

Wow…Eternally Secure…but you basicaly answer my question on what a Protestant thinks of John 20:19-23, when you say (quote): “Going to a preist to forgive you of your sins and trusting the word of a mere man(the pope)will land you along with them in hell.”

Essentially what you’re saying is “This passage is way too Catholic, so I’ll just ignore it or tear that page out of my Bible.”

I’m sorry ES, but you’re the one we need to pray for. You profess to sola scriptura but even then, you decide what passages to personally interpret, and what passages to totally ignore.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ginger2,

That is really cute…

Post the link to there statement of faith or book of discipline or whatever document declares it.

You come up with something that no one else has heard of, and then demand others prove their position. Why not move a little closer to your own demands and post the links that support your stated position that OSAS does not exist.

God bless

 

[orange_man]

“That being said … I would never say Luther was perfect, but of course neither is Rome”

Summing up, if I’m reading TetriumQuid and Orange Man correctly, then there is no Christian faith (Protestant or Catholic) that is perfectly correct on doctrine, faith and morals.

Not exactly. What I would say is that only God is infallible. In that vein yes the Holy Spirit gives us ears that can hear and eyes that can see; however, we are inevitably clouded by our flesh, the world, and so on. God does ensure His church drives in the direction He wants it to go. For some reason God allowed the reformation to take place. For some reason God allowed the abuses within the RCC (during the 15th century) to take place. As a Calvinist I believe God not only allowed these things but decreed them (as He decrees everything, whether actively or passively).

I can only speculate as to God’s reasoning for this … maybe it’s a divine checks and balances system (honestly it’s the only thing I can come up with)??

It’s almost as if you’re proclaiming the Church started by Christ (whatever you think it is) for 2000 years has at times (if ever) gotten wrong Christ’s teachings. As if the Holy Spirit has never been involved in any Christian Church.

the visible church here on earth is a collection of fallible men, while indwelt with the Spirit still possess the infermities of the flesh. So yes you are correct in your summation of my position.

Calvin had sound theology??? He taught that the Eucharist is only a symbol is sound theology?? C’MON!!! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!

you’re confusing Calvin with Zwingli.

And my question on where did Luther (or Calvin, or Zwingli, or Joel Osteen, etc. etc.) get their authority to start a church in Christ’s name never gets answered.

simple, God! (though I’m not sure about Osteen … LOL)

It’s a simple question, with a simple answer. Where did the founder of the Catholic Church (Peter) get his authority to start a Church in Christ’s name? From Jesus Christ.

can you provide evidence for the claim that Peter was the founder of the RCC (beyond internal claims)? Happy fishing

 

[bobregan]

Not exactly. What I would say is that only God is infallible. In that vein yes the Holy Spirit gives us ears that can hear and eyes that can see; however, we are inevitably clouded by our flesh, the world, and so on. God does ensure His church drives in the direction He wants it to go. For some reason God allowed the reformation to take place. For some reason God allowed the abuses within the RCC (during the 15th century) to take place. As a Calvinist I believe God not only allowed these things but decreed them (as He decrees everything, whether actively or passively).

I can only speculate as to God’s reasoning for this … maybe it’s a divine checks and balances system (honestly it’s the only thing I can come up with)??

the visible church here on earth is a collection of fallible men, while indwelt with the Spirit still possess the infermities of the flesh. So yes you are correct in your summation of my position.

you’re confusing Calvin with Zwingli.

simple, God! (though I’m not sure about Osteen … LOL)

can you provide evidence for the claim that Peter was the founder of the RCC (beyond internal claims)? Happy fishing

So the Protestant Reformers got their authority to start a church from God? OK, on that premise, I’m going to start a church also. I too claim the authority for me to start a church came from God. Interestingly though, my teaching directly contradicts your interpretations at every turn. But remember, like Luther, etc. my authority came from God. So I’m as right as they are!!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Eternaly Secure,

Thank you for answering the questions.

And, if you would be so kind to respond the these follow-up questions

1. Upon this rock, is Christ telling Peter that he(Christ) is the rock on which he was going to build his church. Keys speak of access to the Kingdom of heaven here on earth. When the church acts in the name of the Lord and does his will, the stamp of God is upon their deeds.

And, which church would that be?

1. To eat his flesh and drink his blood means to believe on him, the Jews did not realise that the Lord was using physical things to teach spiritual truths.

And, why do you think that the Jews called this a “…hard saying…” and walked out on Christ, if He did not mean to literally eat His Flesh and drink His Blood?

1. The bread signified his body given, the cup his blood shed.
   It was the confirmation of the new covenant and all who believe have part in it.

So, when Christ said to the Apostles during their last time together as a group to take This and eat, This is My Body, He was engaging in another analogy?

1. This is in connection with preaching of the gospel, when a person repents the disciples were authorised to tell them that their sins had been forgiven and like wise when a person rejects the gospel they are to tell them that they are still in their sins. You see you have to compare scripture with scripture and not isolate verses or you get into trouble. And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?

**There are several areas here:
1.) where do you find the “…preaching of the gospel…” in this section?

2.) this was not an authorization to tell anyone anything, this was the delegated authority to either forgive or retain the sins of men - is this what you mean? I honestly am trying to compare scripture with scripture. Christ made it quite clear before He healed the paralytic that only God can forgive sin. Christ is God and He clearly gave this authority through the Holy Spirit to His Apostles. Is that the way you understand this verse?**

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TertiumQuid,

Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful response.

The book of James was never taken out, even by Luther. Luther did not spend a significant amount of energy trying to remove James. It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books, including James.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ginger2,

Woo-hoo! in just a matter of a couple days the numbers has jumped from 30,000 to 40,000!!

Pick a number, Ginger, I am confident I can work with 30,000… but, the real issue ISN’T, the exact number of denominations, **the issue is **the extreme diversity of theological positions: Three Persons in Trinity vs One Person as God, Christ is God vs Christ is not God, Baptism is necessary vs Baptism is not necessary, Christ is symbolically in the Eucharist vs Christ is just being rememebered in the Eucharist, homosexuality is condemned vs homosexuality is not condemned, etc., etc., etc.

There is no unified position in Protestantism that all or even most Protestants agree upon. (The root cause for this lack of agreement is that most lack an organized hierarchy that teaches - most allow for individual interpretation of Scripture.) Not that they haven’t tried to have one - but, they just can’t agree. Since you are claiming that there is a unified position on the central issues of Christianity please give the source (and, while you are at it, tell us what these central issues are, because this is another area that defies consensus.)

And, just to be clear - this isn’t one Protestant Church happening to agree with itself, e.g., the Lutheran Missouri Synod agreeing with itself - they would need to agree with other Lutheran Synods and these in turn would need to agree with Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Church of Christ, etc. Find where they agree and just spell it out (and, don’t forget the references…)

Funny, since I was just told today for the umteenth time that I and another Protestant sound like the same person! How is it Catholics can confuse so many, many different Protestants as being one person, if we are all so very different in our theology?

I don’t know what you are talking about, but I think you left the topic. I am not confused about what you are doing.

FYI, we all adhere to the same basic doctrines of Christianity - that’s why you guys can’t tell us apart!

That is not a problem. Well, that is what makes a horse race … please produce these, “…same basic doctrines of Christianity…” that unites Protestants.

Not exactly, you just forced us into a corner of correcting a false definition.

Apparently, that is your story and you are sticking with it… Try not to let yourself get bullied like that again…

I have repeatedly been accused by Catholics of believing things I don’t believe. OSAS is one example of that. The only reason I ever tried to define it was to explain I don’t believe what Catholics think I believe. I had never, ever before used the terminology “OSAS” nor have I ever, ever heard anyone in any church I attended preached OSAS.

Why do you think that is? Could it be the way that you go about explaining and then re-explaining the matter so that confusion is the net results? Hmmmm…

God bless,

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Eternaly Secure,

The issue is NOT God leaving or forsaking you…

How can he put me in hell, when he promised to never leave me or forsake me.

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE 1 John 5:13

The issue is you leaving and forsaking God. This is done by … go on back to Matt 25:31-46 and just read this over for yourself. The words Christ chose and are recorded by Matthew are clear, the context is unified - but, read all of Matt 25 if you think this will help. Christ wants everyone to know, that mere faith(!!!) is obviously not enough. As James quips, the Devil believes in God - and that does not help them! The answer you are searching for is right there in your own Bible in Matt 25

God bless,

 

[tqualey]

Darn it, Bobergan!

You’re going to have to check with Ginger on that… and we will have to go to 30,001! LOL

So the Protestant Reformers got their authority to start a church from God? OK, on that premise, I’m going to start a church also. I too claim the authority for me to start a church came from God. Interestingly though, my teaching directly contradicts your interpretations at every turn. But remember, like Luther, etc. my authority came from God. So I’m as right as they are!!

OK, OK… I could not help it…

Yes, claiming God directed them…and here we have all of these multiple self-cancelling doctrines (Yes to Baptism vs No to Baptism, Christ is symbolically present vs Christ is just here like everywhere else, etc.) which even the blind can see makes no sense - even the deaf can hear all of this chaos!

There is no reported evidence of God having spoken and directed, Luther, Calvin or any of the other ‘Reformers’. Look what Christ did during the 3-year public ministry: the blind see, the deaf hear, the lame walk and the poor have the good news preached to them. And the Jews still resisted the Son of God! Just what kind of miracles did Luther, Calvin and the other guys demonstrate? How much love did Luther preach to the Jews?

The evidence is quite clear - no Divine light guiding these guys - just a group of self-seeking malcontents determined to have things their own way. They did however set up a type of role model for other malcontents - and now we see why we have so many (30,001…) ‘flavors’.

God bless

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Catholics don’t have any unity on Luther. *Exsurge Domine *said that the Pope could, “without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation…” *Decet Romanum Pontificem *spoke of Luther’s “depraved and damnable purpose.” It called for any of the faithful who were sympathetic to the Lutherans to shun them, so that they “may escape divine vengeance and any degree of participation in their damnation.” It further declared concerning Luther and his followers: “…these and the other sentences, censures and punishments… we decree to have fallen on all these men to their damnation.”

However, the great German Catholic historian from the Universities of Breslau and Bonn, Hubert Jedin held that Catholicism never condemned Luther by name at Trent, and that no official judgment on Luther exists by which a loyal Catholic is bound.

I leave it to better minds than mine to determine the navigation through such official statements.

We don’t have to have a single mind about him - his historical status is a question of historical, & not doctrinal, judgement. AFAICS, Jedin is right. Whether Tetzel’s doctrine of Indulgences was correct is a matter of both history & theology; the question of how far there was a common understanding in the Latin Church of the West before Trent, by contrast, is a matter for historians to differ over; as indeed has happened: in the '60s Fr. Ganoczy took one view, Fr. Francis Clarke took another. Some people appear to imagine that the Vatican is a slot machine, providing a solution toevery conceivable inquiry: you put your question in, & out comes your answer.​

As for those quotations - they have to be seen in historical context. They are not final or irreformable, so it is a mistake to require Catholics to treat them as though they were. It’s one thing to hold us to standards we ought in consistency to admit are binding on us (e.g. the Decalogue; doctrinal definitions) & something else entirely to require us to hold to people’s incorrect conceptions of what we should be bound by. It would be grotesque to complain that Lutherans don’t believe the whole contents of the Westminster or Heidelburg Confessions; but not unreasonable to be puzzled, if a Calvinist were to denounce them.

 

[ICA04]

ICA04,

If we “scare the hell out of you,” why are you in here? I notice under your name it says, “trial membership” with CAF. Are you curious about Catholicism or trying to convert folks out of it? What is your purpose in sharing a forum with people like us that terrify you? I wouldn’t go on a liberal Episcopalian forum or a Mormon forum because some of their theology spooks me bigtime. Your statement is degrading to Catholics and we terrify you. Yet you keep coming to a Catholic forum? I must be missing something?..or maybe you have a part of you that is curious and searching for Catholic truth?

You are right, you must be missing something. What you are missing is what you should be concerned with instead of putting all of your focus on ostricising others who do not agree with you and demeaning other viewpoints that are unlike your own.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Against him?

His thinking is what we should be looking at. Luther’s thoughts, revealed through his writings and actions, are incompatible with the Catholic Church that Christ founded.

But does the fact that he hated Jews really matter? What if he were the nicest person God ever created?

What if he had loved the Jews, and he still changed doctrine and the Bible? How does that make what he did more legitimate?

His rantings are important, because they should show those who choose to follow him that he was not a well-balanced person. There is ample proof that,though he was a brilliant man (imo, anyway), he was unbalanced.

FWIW, I don’t think I’ve spoken about his position on the Jews. His sins are almost irrelevant to me. The fact that he is merely a man is what counts. A man with no authority, either real or erroneously claimed, except his own changed doctrine and the Bible.

That should be a red flag to anyone, whether he hated or loved the Jews. Whether he stole a potato or raped a woman. The actual sins he was guilty of are irrelevant. That he was merely a man is what counts.

That he was clearly a mentally ill malcontent and yet still manages to have steadfast followers is amazing to me. How do you follow a man who is mentally ill and has no authority to do what he did? How do you decide to follow a man’s teaching instead of God’s, especially when he was that obviously sick?

Luther walked away from the Church because he didn’t like it. But on what authority did he start his own? On what authority did he change anything? And how do you know that he was correct? What assurance do you have that changing the Bible that was codified under the guidance of the HS is just AOK with God?

These are the questions that no Lutheran here seems willing to answer.

A lot of that is applicable to Jesus too. He was “merely a man” in the opinion most of his contemporaries, so far as the evidence goes. As for “changing the Bible” - what Luther did was trivial in comparison with adding 27 new books; Jesus had got by very well with the usual 39 (give or take a few); so by what right did anyone add more ? A bunch of fishermen & morally dubious types (who had not even stood by their own leader in his hour of need !) were in no position to do anything of the sort. Any “malcontent” can claim to be led by God - so their claiming this is worth precisely zero. Other writings - such as 1 Enoch, which an Apostle quotes - claim to be inspired.​

Historically, if one denies the possibility that God worked through him, Luther is not much to look at; historically, if one denies the possibility that God worked through him, Jesus is just another Jewish fanatic who came to a sticky end. If God can work through deeply sinful people, He can work through Luther; the only question is, whether & in what way He did so. Is God the sort of God Who might work through a Luther, given the known facts of his life ? A difference in theology seems to be at the root of the disagreement about him.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

No selling indulgences for personal gain, actually selling indulgences in itself is an abuse. Luther was complaining that they were not concerned with repentance.

Without repentance, there is no forgiveness. You can’t buy your way into heaven.

Of course not - that is where the abuse lay. But not the use. Indulgences are valueless unless the person seeking to gain one is repentant. And of course one cannot buy one’s way into heaven - even to try would be simony; as is trafficking in indulgences. FWIW, simony was one of the recurring problems in the Middle Ages; like clerical concubinage. It did not help that the Papacy had been having trouble finding cash for at least 200 years.​

Matters were not helped - unfortunately - by the fact that Luther had some theological tics of his own, having to do with what contrition meant And that in turn was part of a larger theological dispute over the difference & manner of difference between contrition & attrition. So what he says can’t automatically be taken as a judgement on doctrines as they exist now.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**Ginger2, **
I went to the Vatican web site and typed in bulls, then I typed in Cum postquam and it brought up 519, I can’t read them, maybe you can and perhaps you can find what you are looking for. As others have told you, none of us believe we can buy our way into heaven, and we do believe that some abuses did take place by some members of the Church, just as they do in any other denomination, the Church has always been make up of Saints and sinners, Jesus choose Judas too, remember? However, I believe the quest you are on will only lead you to the truth and so I provide this for you to sort through. (since you asked.)gsearch.vatican.va/search?entqr=0&access=p&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&btnG=Search+on+vatican.va&client=default_frontend&q=Cum+postquam&filter=0&ud=1&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&ip=72.189.203.156&start=0

Two other things, #1., I don’t believe you were able to do what you claimed on post #431 When this little exchange took place:
Originally Posted by kalt
Contarini, you said that you know that Luther was right, because you see it in the Bible.
The Bible that Luther changed to fit the doctrine that he just changed.
Then you said this to kalt:
That is outright false. I’ve proven this, yet you keep making that false claim…

Where do you think you have proven this and when?? I obviously missed something.

The other thing, #2. is that I don’t think your translation skills are up to snuff, course I could be wrong, and they sure are far superior to what I could do, but… (you posted this on post #436):

…And, so, everything becomes, living persons like dead who have attained really all this Ablässe, from such big litre of beer of the temporal punishment,…
Is this your translation of what was said or is this what is really said in that document? Either way, what the heck does that mean?

Someone has been using Babelfish to translate It has a habit of reducing perfectly sensible texts to - Babel.​

BTW, Cum postquam is a Decree, not a Bull.

 

[c659smith]

A lot of that is applicable to Jesus too. He was “merely a man” in the opinion most of his contemporaries, so far as the evidence goes. As for “changing the Bible” - what Luther did was trivial in comparison with adding 27 new books; Jesus had got by very well with the usual 39 (give or take a few); so by what right did anyone add more ? A bunch of fishermen & morally dubious types (who had not even stood by their own leader in his hour of need !) were in no position to do anything of the sort. Any “malcontent” can claim to be led by God - so their claiming this is worth precisely zero. Other writings - such as 1 Enoch, which an Apostle quotes - claim to be inspired.​

Historically, if one denies the possibility that God worked through him, Luther is not much to look at; historically, if one denies the possibility that God worked through him, Jesus is just another Jewish fanatic who came to a sticky end. If God can work through deeply sinful people, He can work through Luther; the only question is, whether & in what way He did so. Is God the sort of God Who might work through a Luther, given the known facts of his life ? A difference in theology seems to be at the root of the disagreement about him.

ah !!

But cannot the same be said of Judas Iscariot.

Jesus says, “The Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born” (Matt. 26:24). If Judas ended up in heaven rather than hell, it would be difficult to see how it would have been better for him not to have been born. Going through any amount of temporal pain and disgrace is not worth comparing to the joys of heaven (Rom. 8:18), and, if Judas went to heaven, matters still came out infinitely to his benefit. Only if Judas went to hell, it seems to me, would it have been better for him not to have been born.

 

[RobbyS]

I realize this sampling of Catholic anti-semitism…
240
Origen of Alexandria writes that the Jews “have committed the most abominable of crimes” in conspiring against Christ, and for that reason “the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election”

414
St. Cyril of Alexandria expels Jews from his city
937
Pope Leo VII encourages his newly appointed archbishop of Mainz to expel all Jews who refuse to be baptized
1010-1020
In Rouen, Orléans, Limoges, Mainz, and probably also in Rome, Jews are converted by force, massacred, or expelled
1096
Massacres of Jews takes place in the First Crusade, destroying entire Jewish communities in Mainz, Speyer, Worms, Cologne and other cities. The Jewish chronicler reports: “The enemies stripped them naked and dragged them off, granting quarter to none, save those few who accepted baptism. The number of the slain was eight hundred in these two days.” The chronicler Guibert de Nogent reports that the Rouen Crusaders said: “We desire to go and fight God’s enemies in the East; but we have before our eyes certain Jews, a race more inimical to God than any other”
1267
The Synod of Breslau decrees compulsory ghettos for Jews
1279
The Synod of Ofen decrees that Christians cannot sell or rent real estate to Jews
1345
King John authorizes his subjects in Liegnitz and Breslau to destroy the Jewish cemeteries in order to use the tombstones to repair the city walls
1456
Pope Callistus III bans all social communication between Christians and Jews
1475
The entire Jewish community in Trent, northern Italy, is put to death on the allegation that it had murdered a boy for religious purposes
1492
After forcing many Jews to be baptized and then referring to them as Marranos (swine), and after an Inquisition in which some 700 Marranos were burnt at the stake for showing signs of “Jewish” taint, Spain expels all Jews from the country
1553
Cardinal Carafa instigates a public burning of copies of the Talmud and other Jewish religious works in a square in Rome
1555-1559
Pope Paul IV restricts Jews to ghettos and decrees that they are to wear distinctive headgear
1566-1572
Pope St. Pius V expels Jews from the Papal States, allowing some to remain in Rome’s ghettos and in Ancona for commercial reasons
1592-1605
Pope Clement VIII includes a ban on all Jewish books in the expanded Index of Forbidden Books
1826
Pope Leo XII decrees that Jews are to be confined to ghettos and their property is to be confiscated

…pales in comparison to Luther’s remark:

“…Did I not tell you earlier that a Jew is such a noble, precious jewel that God and all the angels dance when he farts?”

People please, can we not attack each other for past atrocities, but try to live a better faith then those who have gone before us?

I distimguish, as many people do, between anti-semiticism and anti-judaism. Anti-semiticism is racial prejudice which emcompasses Jews who are not believers.