S
Shibboleth
Guest
I found this on Milgram’s Experiment
- Status
E
Eden
Guest
I just want to mention that Hitler was Austrian, not German. Secondly, I commend you for keeping your spiritual focus. I personally enjoy the intellectual stimulation of these kinds of debates but I can understand how it can become spiritually draining for some.
.
C
Contarini
Guest
No, that doesn’t work. For that to work you would have to show that he had milder views about Jews before his break with the Church. It’s not true that Luther moved “farther and farther away” from Catholicism. Luther’s most radical point was probably the early 1520s. After the Peasants’ War and the controversy with Zwingli he tended to emphasize tradition and structure much more. If you want to go with the common view that he had gentler views toward the Jews earlier on, that doesn’t help you, because these more moderate sentiments were expressed precisely in the context of rejection of Catholicism, arguing that Jews had rejected Christianity because the Church had failed to preach the true Gospel. Essentially, once Jews rejected Luther’s teachings as well, he decided that the late medieval attitude toward them was right after all.
Heiko Oberman questioned whether Luther’s later views were essentially different from his earlier ones. But either way your argument fails. There is no evidence that Luther became more vitriolic against Jews the further away he moved from Catholicism.
Whether medieval Catholics inherited the “blood libel” from ancient pagans (which is quite likely) is hardly the point. In fact, your argument makes my point quite nicely. Antijudaism is very ancient. If Catholics are not to be blamed for continuing pagan prejudices, why is Luther to be blamed for maintaining those same attitudes?
BTW, I know quite well that the official teaching of the Church was far more favorable to Jews than popular sentiment often was. That however doesn’t get the Church off the hook, since the Church helped perpetuate the climate that encouraged such attitudes. Furthermore, the Church’s stance became substantially harsher as the Middle Ages progressed. The Church’s record here is very mixed, but there’s plenty to condemn. We should all stop pointing fingers at each other and recognize that anti-Judaism has been a problem for centuries, and that it is the responsibility of all Christians. Singling out Luther is just plain unjust.
Edwin
M
Mickey
Guest
As soon as you pointed a finger, you said we should all stop pointing fingers. What’s up with that?
C
Contarini
Guest
What’s up with that is that this thread is about Luther. I don’t go around attacking Catholicism on this issue. In fact, I don’t go around attacking Catholicism at all. I do however point out when people are throwing stones in stained-glass houses. Catholics have no business trying to discredit Protestantism by pointing out Luther’s anti-Jewish rhetoric. It’s either naive or dishonest to do so, and either way it’s laughable.As soon as you pointed a finger, you said we should all stop pointing fingers. What’s up with that?
Edwin
E
Eden
Guest
If Luther’s viewpoints don’t bother Protestants, well, I guess that’s why they’re Protestant! Still, I fail to see why Catholics trying to discuss Luther from a Catholic perspective on a Catholic forum is objectionable.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Just a quick followup.
Most of Johann Eck’s writings were in Latin, but some feel that since his anti-Jewish writings were written in German, they were intended for a popular audience. In one of his anti-Jewish works, Eck perpetuates some of the leading anti-Jewish propaganda prevalent in his day, particularly the Jewish ritual murder of children and the taking of their blood. After documenting Eck’s work to substantiate a Jewish ritual murder, Mark U. Edwards notes,
“Eck harbors no doubts about the authenticity of this ritual murder… This incredible story is only one of several alleged ritual murders related in the anonymous account and in Eck’s treatise. It illustrates well, however, the improbability of the charge of ritual murder, while at the same time it shows that even highly educated men such as Johann Eck firmly believed such libels. Eck’s whole treatise, Refutation of a Jew-book in Which a Christian, to the Dishonor of All Christendom Claims That Injustice is Done the Jews in the Accusation That They Murder Christian Children, published a year before Luther’s most infamous treatises, is dedicated to proving, in reply to a Lutheran skeptic, that Jews did murder Christian children for their rituals; that they did desecrate the eucharistic host; and that they did do such things as poison wells and bewitch animals and ruin crops. These were the convictions of a scholar, writing in this case for a popular audience” [Mark U Edwards, Luther’s Last Battles, 120].
The **Catholic Encyclopedia ** says of 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” [Catholic Encyclopedia, Johann Eck entry]
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.”
Regards,
James Swan
C
Contarini
Guest
A distorted and unjust perspective doesn’t gain magical protection from criticism by being labeled “Catholic.” If you choose to say unfair things about Luther (or any other historical figure in whom I feel an interest), I will denounce you with all my might.
Plenty of Luther’s viewpoints bother me. That is not the issue. I don’t know anyone whose religion is based on acceptance of all Luther’s opinions or approval of all his actions. You’re making exactly the same mistake as those foolish anti-Catholics who recite lists of “bad popes” thinking they are refuting Catholicism.
Edwin
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Eden, I enjoy your in-depth analysis of Luther. I must say, I never heard that one before, so two thumbs up for your originality and creativity. On the other hand, the analysis doesn’t best make sense of the facts, so i have to reject it as not the right way of looking at Luther’s life.
Roland Bainton has pointed out,
“Luther’s later years are, however, by no means to be written off as the sputterings of a dying flame. If in his polemical tracts he was at times savage and coarse, in the works which constitute the real marrow of his life’s endeavor he grew constantly in maturity and artistic creativity. The biblical translation was improved to the very end. The sermons and the biblical commentaries reached superb heights. The delineation of the sacrifice of Isaac, … comes from the year 1545. Some of the passages cited throughout this book [Here I Stand] to illustrate Luther’s religious and ethical principles are also from the later period.”
Similarly, the popular caricature of Luther as a less-than-coherent-angry-old-man has been addressed in a thoughtful paper by Gordon Rupp entitled, “Miles Emeritus? Continuity and Old Discontinuity Between the Young and The Luther” Rupp points out:
“But what of the old Luther? It is often assumed that his last years were racked with illness and exhaustion, and the symptoms of old age: that pessimism and intolerance provoked him into outrageous polemic and made him the scorn of his enemies, and a trial to his friends. I believe this to be a quite exaggerated impression.”
“Nor is his thought and in the quality of his writing, and in the depths of his achievement is it permissible to drive a wedge between the Young and the Old Luther. There were great and lasting continuities. Not that there were no changes.”
“Despite changes of emphasis, and a way of picking on a phrase like ‘Christ’s strange work’ or ‘gratia’ and ‘donum’ or the thought of the pope as a Werewolf, which he uses for a time, and the drops, and despite the fact that he was no systematizer, there is an inner coherence and consistency in Luther’s thought. This is most evident in the firmness with which he held to the doctrine of Justification ‘sola fide’ and ‘solo Christo’.”
Regards,
James Swan
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Both Mickey. As an example, on the other *Luther movie * thread I utilized Hartmann Grisar in tracking down a spurious Luther quote. Here was the quote:
This quote does not appear in the 55 volume English edition of Luther’s Works. I also did a google search and got about 67 hits. Of the 40 or so I looked at, none of them provided a context. Many of them did though provide a reference: Works 12.94. This reference is most likely to the German Weimar edition of Luther’s Works.
My next method of tracking down suspicious anti-Luther quotes is to consult the negative polemical books written by Roman Catholics about Luther. Sure enough, I found this quote (still without a context though) In Luther Vol. III by the Jesuit Hartmann Grisar. He cites the quote, and then goes on to say,
“By this statement, which so easily lends itself to misunderstanding, Luther does not mean to put women in the alternative of choosing either marriage or vice. In another passage of the same writing he says distinctly, what he repeats also elsewhere: “It is certain that He [God] does not create any woman to be a prostitute.” Still it is undeniable that in the above passage, in his recommendation of marriage, he allows himself to be carried away to the use of untimely language.”
Source: Hartmann Grisar, Luther Vol. III (St. Loius: B. Herder Book Co., 1919), 243.
Grisar’s discussion at this point has to do with Luther’s views of Marriage and Celibacy. Grisar understands Luther to repudiate celibacy, and presents many Luther citations attempting to prove that Luther over-stated the human desire for sex- that’s how the quote in question is being used in his biography. By quoting Luther saying, “The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes,” I can guess that Luther must have been discussing human sexual desires, and exhorting people to marry.
Tangentially, I think Grisar is mistaken in his belief that Luther repudiated celibacy. Luther held that humans by their own strength are unable to achieve true chasteness. Rather, complete chastity is a gift of God. Luther thus strongly advocated marriage! For anyone interested in learning more about Hartmann Grisar’s work on Luther, I did an overview of his work here:
ntrmin.org/The%20Roman%2…0Luther%201.htm
Regards,
James Swan
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Hi Edwin,
Now this is quotable!
Thanks
James Swan
M
Mickey
Guest
Who am I to argue, TQ? You’re the expert.
Since Luther felt that complete chastity was a gift of God, and hence he advocated marriage, do you think he was saying that since very few receive this God given gift, marriage should be pursued? What is your opinion on this?
E
Eden
Guest
Please do attack me as you feel the need. My point was to say that you are not going to get a censored “P.C.” version of Luther on these boards. If you’d like to read only positive opinions about Luther, I suggest going to Eric Svendsen’s website on which Tertium Quid has his article or other anti-Catholic sites. In fact, just read a newspaper. Our mainstream culture refers to his destruction as the “Reformation”. “Deformation” or “Malformation” would be more accurate. As far as “bad popes”, I don’t see the equivalence. Martin Luther started a new religion upon which the legitimacy of Protestantism rests. I don’t recall any “bad popes” creating a new religion. In fact, during these times of crisis many strong, holy people have led the Church through and became saints.
C
Contarini
Guest
I don’t expect a PC version. I expect fairness. You apparently don’t care for that.
Of course the parallel between Luther and the “bad popes” isn’t an exact one (for one thing, Luther at his worst is far more admirable than many popes). The parallel is that in both cases foolish polemicists are attacking something irrelevant. Protestants don’t think Luther started a new religion. Nor do we think people used by God have to be perfect. So attacking Luther’s character is going to get you nowhere, except insofar as you can fool gullible people into thinking it’s a relevant issue, or annoy more informed Protestants by your injustice and your double standard.
You have yet to provide any evidence that Luther was any more “anti-Semitic” than most people of his day. I’m waiting with bated breath . . . .
Edwin
Of course the parallel between Luther and the “bad popes” isn’t an exact one (for one thing, Luther at his worst is far more admirable than many popes). The parallel is that in both cases foolish polemicists are attacking something irrelevant. Protestants don’t think Luther started a new religion. Nor do we think people used by God have to be perfect. So attacking Luther’s character is going to get you nowhere, except insofar as you can fool gullible people into thinking it’s a relevant issue, or annoy more informed Protestants by your injustice and your double standard.
You have yet to provide any evidence that Luther was any more “anti-Semitic” than most people of his day. I’m waiting with bated breath . . . .
Edwin
M
Mickey
Guest
Well, you aked for it Eden. Edwin continue to attack you as he feels the need.
The way I see it, there is really not much middle ground on the subject of Luther. People either think he was “the father of division” or “a noble reformer fulfilling the will of God.” Luther’s character does not really lend itself to neutrality.
E
Eden
Guest
You are not obligated to agree with my conclusion. However, you have made it quite clear in other threads that Luther’s vitriolic assault on Jews did not develop until the end of his life. It seems a matter of convenience to reject that idea now:
“Insofar as these two quotes Malachi4U used express Luther’s opinion in 1543, they are accurate. However, what these quotes don’t do is give you an overview of Luther’s entire complicated career and attitude toward the Jews. Quotes like the ones Malachi4U used leave one with a caricature that Luther was a life-long-fire-breathing anti-Semite. This is hardly true. This is probably the reason why the Luther movie doesn’t deal with Luther’s later treatises against the Jews. They come at the end of his life.” - Tertium Quid
“Before I deal specifically with the quotes Malachi4U posted, it’s best to understand why Luther arrived where he did at the end of his life in his attitude towards Judasim and the Jews.” - Tertium Quid
“Thus ends my research into the early period of Luther’s attitudes towards the Jews. There are three distinct periods in Luther’s writings on the Jews that deserve a closer look. For any of you that have read these four posts, it must be bewildering- How did Luther go from these comments to what he said in 1543?” - Tertium Quid
“Insofar as these two quotes you used that express Luther’s opinion in 1543, they are accurate. However, what these quotes don’t do is give you an overview of Luther’s entire complicated career and attitude toward the Jews. Quotes like the ones you used leave one with a caricature that Luther was a life-long-fire-breathing anti-Semite. This is hardly true.” - Tertium Quid
C
Contarini
Guest
Mickey,
You are completely wrong. There are lots of us with very mixed feelings about Luther. That’s precisely why I’m so annoyed at the approach taken on this board. I know very few Protestants who idealize Luther. Sure, for many poorly informed folks he’s just a stick figure representing the Glorious Reformation. But perhaps because I’ve been studying this stuff in grad school for so long, I take it for granted that everyone knows about Luther’s flaws. Granted that this isn’t true in the Wide World Out There, the smear attacks going on on this board are not the way to burst people’s bubbles.
And the question remains: just what do you think you are going to prove? If you prove that Luther was the Father of All Evil, most Protestants will just shrug. The only people for whom this is really relevant are Lutherans. While the basis for Lutheranism is the Creeds and Confessions, not Luther as an individual, it would be pretty hard to be a devout Lutheran and still think Luther was totally despicable. (Good look making that case, BTW. My point is that even if you made it, it wouldn’t be a knock-down argument against Protestantism.)
If I wasn’t a student of the Reformation, I wouldn’t even bother answering this nonsense. From a theological point of view, all these attacks on Luther are intensely boring. They enrage me both because they poison the air and because they are historically unjust.
There are real, serious questions to be raised about the Reformation–such as whether it did not deliver Western Christendom (even Catholisicm to some extent) hand and foot into the power of the State. But we won’t get to those questions by taking Luther’s juicy quotes and beating folks over the head with them.
Edwin
You are completely wrong. There are lots of us with very mixed feelings about Luther. That’s precisely why I’m so annoyed at the approach taken on this board. I know very few Protestants who idealize Luther. Sure, for many poorly informed folks he’s just a stick figure representing the Glorious Reformation. But perhaps because I’ve been studying this stuff in grad school for so long, I take it for granted that everyone knows about Luther’s flaws. Granted that this isn’t true in the Wide World Out There, the smear attacks going on on this board are not the way to burst people’s bubbles.
And the question remains: just what do you think you are going to prove? If you prove that Luther was the Father of All Evil, most Protestants will just shrug. The only people for whom this is really relevant are Lutherans. While the basis for Lutheranism is the Creeds and Confessions, not Luther as an individual, it would be pretty hard to be a devout Lutheran and still think Luther was totally despicable. (Good look making that case, BTW. My point is that even if you made it, it wouldn’t be a knock-down argument against Protestantism.)
If I wasn’t a student of the Reformation, I wouldn’t even bother answering this nonsense. From a theological point of view, all these attacks on Luther are intensely boring. They enrage me both because they poison the air and because they are historically unjust.
There are real, serious questions to be raised about the Reformation–such as whether it did not deliver Western Christendom (even Catholisicm to some extent) hand and foot into the power of the State. But we won’t get to those questions by taking Luther’s juicy quotes and beating folks over the head with them.
Edwin
E
Eden
Guest
Hi, Mickey. That’s fine with me. As Catholics are in the minority in the U.S., this is nothing new, is it?Well, you aked for it Eden. Edwin continue to attack you as he feels the need.
The way I see it, there is really not much middle ground on the subject of Luther. People either think he was “the father of division” or “a noble reformer fulfilling the will of God.” Luther’s character does not really lend itself to neutrality.
Part of the reason that we are polarized on the issue of Luther is that he is a polarizing figure. The difference as Catholics is that we think in absolutes. Abortion is either right or wrong. Gay marriage is either right or wrong. Luther was either right or wrong. For Catholics, there was only one Church created on earth by Jesus. In order for Luther’s ideas to be legitimate, Luther would have to have been chosen by the Holy Spirit to break from the Church and create a new church. The Protestant view is relativist. Varying views are open to interpretation and while opinions may not always match, there is no right answer. It’s a way of thinking in which, “your religion is equal to mine, and while I disagree with Presbyterians on this, I agree with Methodists on that.”
Secondly, Luther was contradictory in his beliefs and writings. He lends himself well to this kind of polarization because he left writings that support either view.
E
Eden
Guest
I stand corrected. It looks like one absolute is that the posters on this board who reject Luther as a spiritual leader are “wrong”.
E
Eden
Guest
O.K. So, Luther was equal in “anti-Semitism” to the majority of people in his day. How is that a “Reformation”? I don’t see anything “new” and “improved” here.
- Status