Luther's Comments About the Jews vs. The Papal Bull "Decet Romanum"

Beggars All: Reformation Apologetics ^ | March 4, 2015 | James Swan

[Alex Murphy]

I don't have anything to gain by an exoneration of Luther's obvious societal stereotype against the Jews. Luther was not infallible. He said a number of things ranging on the scale of brilliant to typical to ridiculous to offensive. From my perspective, Luther's theology neither stands or falls because of statements on the negative side of the scale. It's my opinion that Luther's attitude toward the Jews is part of Church history, and, that really, to point a finger at Luther one needs to consistently point the fingers beyond Luther as well. This would be the consistent thing to do.

There are though a number of Rome's cyber-defenders that think the Third Reich began with Luther and think posting Luther's dreadful comments from The Jews and Their Lies is a meaningful argument against Protestantism. For instance, a participant on Catholic Answers stated,

I am sure that we are going to hear emphasized the portion of the above quote which speaks of the 'medieval prejudices' against the Jews, but it should be noted that nobody made ANY of the seven recommendations that Luther made as to what should physically happen to the Jews.

I've responded to this sort of argument before. It's simply illogical to think Luther invented Jewish oppression and that the church didn't play it's part in creating the anti-Judaic culture Luther lived in. If Luther caused  the Third Reich... who caused Luther? Nope, Rome's cyber-defenders won't touch that one. In fact, last time I brought this up on Catholic Answers, my main post on this was deleted.

There is though a double standard that I had never considered until recently. While it's easy to cut-and-paste Luther's harsh recommendations against the Jews and triumphantly declare, "look how awful!" consider the following Papal Bull "Decet Romanum" against a group of people, known as "Lutherans":

On all these we decree the sentences of excommunication, of anathema, of our perpetual condemnation and interdict; of privation of dignities, honours and property on them and their descendants, and of declared unfitness for such possessions; of the confiscation of their goods and of the crime of treason; and these and the other sentences, censures and punishments which are inflicted by canon law on heretics and are set out in our aforesaid missive, we decree to have fallen on all these men to their damnation.

We add to our present declaration, by our Apostolic authority, that states, territories, camps, towns and places in which these men have temporarily lived or chanced to visit, along with their possessions—cities which house cathedrals and metropolitans, monasteries and other religious and sacred places, privileged or unprivileged—one and all are placed under our ecclesiastical interdict, while this interdict lasts, no pretext of Apostolic Indulgence (except in cases the law allows, and even there, as it were, with the doors shut and those under excommunication and interdict excluded) shall avail to allow the celebration of mass and the other divine offices. We prescribe and enjoin that the men in question are everywhere to be denounced publicly as excommunicated, accursed, condemned, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them. They are to be strictly shunned by all faithful Christians.

I would say this statement has some of the same features Luther's comments against the Jews have. Property is to be confiscated, those adhering to "Lutheranism" are to be treated as criminals against the Empire. They were considered "excommunicated, accursed, condemned, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them. They are to be strictly shunned by all faithful Christians."

In regard to the immediate impact of Luther's comments against the Jews, Gordon Rupp stated that "Nobody took Luther's programme seriously, and the new mandate of John Frederick in 1543, though severe, was on other lines. Three years later, as we shall see, Jews were still living unmolested in the Mansfeld area" [Gordon Rupp, Martin Luther and the Jews (London: The Council of Christians and Jews, 1972), 18]. On the other hand, there were a number of Protestant martyrs during the 16th-century (yes, I know there were Roman martyrs as well, but that's besides the point).

So when Rome's cyber-defenders bring up Luther's attitude toward the Jews, respond back with Decet Romanum, and ask them if they think the bull disproves the Roman church.

[Alex Murphy]

I don't have anything to gain by an exoneration of Luther's obvious societal stereotype against the Jews. Luther was not infallible. He said a number of things ranging on the scale of brilliant to typical to ridiculous to offensive. From my perspective, Luther's theology neither stands or falls because of statements on the negative side of the scale....While it's easy to cut-and-paste Luther's harsh recommendations against the Jews and triumphantly declare, "look how awful!" consider the following Papal Bull "Decet Romanum" against a group of people, known as "Lutherans":

On all these we decree the sentences of excommunication, of anathema, of our perpetual condemnation and interdict; of privation of dignities, honours and property on them and their descendants, and of declared unfitness for such possessions; of the confiscation of their goods and of the crime of treason; and these and the other sentences, censures and punishments which are inflicted by canon law on heretics and are set out in our aforesaid missive, we decree to have fallen on all these men to their damnation.

We add to our present declaration, by our Apostolic authority, that states, territories, camps, towns and places in which these men have temporarily lived or chanced to visit, along with their possessions—cities which house cathedrals and metropolitans, monasteries and other religious and sacred places, privileged or unprivileged—one and all are placed under our ecclesiastical interdict, while this interdict lasts, no pretext of Apostolic Indulgence (except in cases the law allows, and even there, as it were, with the doors shut and those under excommunication and interdict excluded) shall avail to allow the celebration of mass and the other divine offices. We prescribe and enjoin that the men in question are everywhere to be denounced publicly as excommunicated, accursed, condemned, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them. They are to be strictly shunned by all faithful Christians.

I would say this statement has some of the same features Luther's comments against the Jews have. Property is to be confiscated, those adhering to "Lutheranism" are to be treated as criminals against the Empire. They were considered "excommunicated, accursed, condemned, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them. They are to be strictly shunned by all faithful Christians"....

....So when Rome's cyber-defenders bring up Luther's attitude toward the Jews, respond back with Decet Romanum, and ask them if they think the bull disproves the Roman church.

[Paleo Conservative]

Should one condemn all of Newton’s writings, because he dabbled in alchemy?

[xone]

if they think the bull disproves the Roman church.

[edpc]

Martin Luther and the Jews

That was the name of my garage band.

[Campion]

Nobody took Luther's programme seriously

At least until 1933.

[fidelis]

"On the other hand, there were a number of Protestant martyrs during the 16th-century (yes, I know there were Roman martyrs as well, but that's besides the point)."

Oh really? How do you figure that?

[Alex Murphy]

[Nobody took Luther's programme seriously] At least until 1933.

How much time had passed before Catholics took Decet Romanum seriously?

[edwinland]

"Should one condemn all of Newton’s writings, because he dabbled in alchemy?"

Naturally not. And as an aside, Newton did not dabble in Alchemy. I remember being taught that he wrote as much on alchemy as on physics, but I can't find a source at the moment. This article has some related info:

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/newton-papers-q-and-a/

More intriguingly, Lynn Thorndike suggests that newton's astrological belief in 'action at a distance' was key to his discoveries in the field of gravity.

[fidelis]

A careful reading of this document (as well as the one by Pope Leo that preceded it 60 days before) makes it clear that the sanctions and punishments it contains were not directed at the average person that followed Luther in his heresy, but to those in positions of power and influence that were abetting Luther's cause. It talks about taking away their special privileges and all that went with them, including wealth and positions of influence--something your average Lutheran (or Catholic) of the time did not possess. We're talking here about clerics, princes and other influential people that had jumped on Luther's bandwagon--often because it gave them a chance to enrich themselves by confiscating the land and property of the Church. It also talked about forfeiting these often hereditary rights to their descendent's--a common interdict of the time placed upon the landed and wealthy.

In other words, this document can in no way be read as a blanket interdict of all Lutherans of all times. The same goes for the anathemas of the Council of Trent. They were aimed at Catholics of the time who had apostatized from the Catholic Faith-- not at Lutherans sitting in their pews in 2015.

[Buggman]

Which at the time was the closest thing we had to chemistry.

I'd also point out that while Luther got rather more irascible in his later life, he was also responsible for penning, "That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew," which was radically philo-Semitic for its time.

Shalom

[af_vet_1981]

I don't have anything to gain by an exoneration of Luther's obvious societal stereotype against the Jews. Luther was not infallible. He said a number of things ranging on the scale of brilliant to typical to ridiculous to offensive. From my perspective, Luther's theology neither stands or falls because of statements on the negative side of the scale. It's my opinion that Luther's attitude toward the Jews is part of Church history, and, that really, to point a finger at Luther one needs to consistently point the fingers beyond Luther as well. This would be the consistent thing to do.

"societal stereotype" ? Luther <= Haman. Because he is foundational to the re-formation of the Christian religion, his foundation is illegitimate prima facie.

There is a simple test for antisemitism, which I present. Luther completely failed it, spending his last time on earth conspiring and plotting as to how he could physically harm Jews (robbery, rape, and murder). He was distressed when people gave sanctuary to the Jewish refugees, just like the Nazis who succeeded him.

Are the Jews that Luther hated, as well as the Jews who perished in the Holocaust, the least of Jesus' brethren ? Anything except an affirmative is not only cognitive dissonance, but antisemitism.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
-Deuteronomy, Catholic chapter six, Protestant verses four to nine, -Leviticus, Catholic chapter nineteen, Protestant verse eighteen, -Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty two, Protestant verses thirty six to forty, -Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty five, Protestant verses thirty two to forty six, as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[edwinland]

There are though a number of Rome's cyber-defenders that think the Third Reich began with Luther and think posting Luther's dreadful comments from The Jews and Their Lies is a meaningful argument against Protestantism.

Before launching into a refutation of "Rome's cyber defenders that think the Third Reich began with Luther", an example of the "number" of such Cyber defender or even such a cyber defense would be in order, no?

I clicked though your link in the clause "Rome's cyber defenders that think the Third Reich began with Luther" expecting to find, well, an example of one of "Rome's cyber defenders" who "think the Third Reich began with Luther" and instead I found an excellent blog post by a Lutheran, about a fascinating book by Lutheran writer Uwe Siemon-Netto.

Neither the book nor the blog post cited any of Rome's cyber defenders. Rather, the blogger wrote this excellent summary of the book:

In a world ripe with propaganda it is refreshing to find a book dissecting a cliché that was used for just such purposes by people as far apart as Josef Goebbels and Alan Dershowitz, namely, that Luther was the “spiritual predecessor of Adolf Hitler” (p. 23). Siemon-Netto’s book traces the origin of the cliché that “linked Luther to Hitler“ back to the liberal theologian Troeltsch who passed it on to the writer Thomas Mann who, in turn, shared it with the author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich William L. Shirer (p.24). From there it was picked up by the Germanophobic propagandist Lord Vansittart as well as by archbishops and priests of the Church of England. It was also popular among America’s Union Theological Seminary faculty in the early thirties and is used by U.S. historians like Robert Michael and Lucy Dawidowicz, among many others, today (p. 23).

In fact, those who were primarily responsible for the Holocaust and generally for the brutality on the Eastern Front of World War II were men who had not only left Christianity but were intent on destroying the entire Judeo-Christian tradition because it was unGerman. To show the ludicrous nature of the cliché that blamed the Holocaust on the line of descent from the Protestant Luther, Siemon-Netto points out that many perpetrators were born into homes and countries (Austria and Poland, for example) that were formerly or nominally Roman Catholic. He raises this point only, however, to emphasize “the absurdity of the charge that one Christian denomination’s theology paved the way for genocide“ (p. 66)

So let's go through that list of those who propounded the accusation that Luther was the “spiritual predecessor of Adolf Hitler”

1. Josef Goebbels, born Catholic but hardly a defender of the the Church, let alone a cyber defender. A choice quote: "The Catholic clergy is collaborating with the enemies of our country in a truly treasonable manner. I could burst with rage when I think that we cannot possibly call the guilty ones to account now. We shall save our vengeance until later"

2. Alan Dershowitz (Jewish)

3. Troeltsch, born Lutheran and a prominent Protestant Theologian

4.Thomas Mann, Lutheran

5. William L. Shirer, Protestant

6. Lord Vansittart (Church of England Protestant I believe)

7. Archbishops and priests of the Church of England. Catholics!! But too early to be cyber defenders and by the way, no quote is provided here to support their role in this accusation.

8. America’s Union Theological Seminary faculty. Protestant.

9. Robert Michael, Protestant.

10. Lucy Dawidowicz, Jewish

After a fairly exhaustive search for one of the "number of Rome's cyber-defenders that think the Third Reich began with Luther" your links would so far suggest that the number in question is approximately zero.

p.s. "Topper17" who is a member of the Catholic answers forum may indeed be one of Rome's cyber defenders, but his argument has nothing to do with the Holocaust. His point is that Luther's views were worse thatn his contemporaries. He doesn't prove his point because he only cites Luther and not his contemporaries but either way, it doesn't move the "number" north of ZERO.

[af_vet_1981]

For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?
Esther, Catholic chapter four, Protestant verse fourteen, as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[xone]

Are the Jews that Luther hated, as well as the Jews who perished in the Holocaust, the least of Jesus' brethren ? Anything except an affirmative is not only cognitive dissonance, but antisemitism.

So you say. Who does the Bible say are Jesus' brethren? Unless this is just Christianity according to af_vet_1981. Christianity is Christ's, he makes the call.

[xone]

He doesn't prove his point because he only cites Luther and not his contemporaries

A trait common to those decrying Luther on this point.

[Cap'n Crunch]

It’s George Bush’s fault.

[xone]

I reread your analysis, and it is very well done. However, there are cyber defenders of Rome who tout that very thing, (Luther’s connection to the Holocaust)right here on FR. One right here on this thread. The other only this week. But since one must ‘prove his point’, they probably don’t count in that total either.

[af_vet_1981]

Are the Jews that Luther hated, as well as the Jews who perished in the Holocaust, the least of Jesus' brethren ? Anything except an affirmative is not only cognitive dissonance, but antisemitism.

So you say. Who does the Bible say are Jesus' brethren? Unless this is just Christianity according to af_vet_1981. Christianity is Christ's, he makes the call.

Do not choose theological antisemitism masquerading as Christianity. Choose life.

And the children of Israel set forward, and pitched in the plains of Moab on this side Jordan by Jericho. And Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites. And Moab was sore afraid of the people, because they were many: and Moab was distressed because of the children of Israel. And Moab said unto the elders of Midian, Now shall this company lick up all that are round about us, as the ox licketh up the grass of the field. And Balak the son of Zippor was king of the Moabites at that time. He sent messengers therefore unto Balaam the son of Beor to Pethor, which is by the river of the land of the children of his people, to call him, saying, Behold, there is a people come out from Egypt: behold, they cover the face of the earth, and they abide over against me: Come now therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people; for they are too mighty for me: peradventure I shall prevail, that we may smite them, and that I may drive them out of the land: for I wot that he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed. And the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed with the rewards of divination in their hand; and they came unto Balaam, and spake unto him the words of Balak. And he said unto them, Lodge here this night, and I will bring you word again, as the Lord shall speak unto me: and the princes of Moab abode with Balaam. And God came unto Balaam, and said, What men are these with thee? And Balaam said unto God, Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, hath sent unto me, saying, Behold, there is a people come out of Egypt, which covereth the face of the earth: come now, curse me them; peradventure I shall be able to overcome them, and drive them out. And God said unto Balaam, Thou shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people: for they are blessed.

Then Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, arose and warred against Israel, and sent and called Balaam the son of Beor to curse you: But I would not hearken unto Balaam; therefore he blessed you still: so I delivered you out of his hand.

For I, saith the Lord, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and will be the glory in the midst of her. Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the Lord: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the Lord. Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon. For thus saith the Lord of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye. For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me. Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord. And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto thee. And the Lord shall inherit Judah his portion in the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again. Be silent, O all flesh, before the Lord: for he is raised up out of his holy habitation.
Numbers, Catholic chapter twenty two, Protestant verses one to twelve,
Joshua, Catholic chapter twenty four, Protestant verses nine to ten,
Zechariah, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verses five to thirteen,

authorized, but not authored, by King James

[xone]

Anything except an affirmative is not only cognitive dissonance,

Theology by assertion. What is cognitive dissonance is a Catholic going on about Luther's anti-semitism as if it differs from the OTC's. And yet it does differ, unlike the Catholic church, it was all talk.

As a Catholic, you best get on board with your hierarchy. You viewpoint is out of their mainstream.

Do not choose theological antisemitism masquerading as Christianity. Choose life.

Don't confuse your outlook with Christianity. God's Word has the final say.

[edwinland]

Thanks for your reply. We have established, based solely on Lutheran blogs reviewing books by Lutherans, that the idea that "the Third Reich began with Luther" originated with the Nazis and was propounded to Europe intially by prominent Lutherans and in the US by prominent Protestants and a couple of Jews. However, the writer of the article you posted ignores all of this Lutheran history written and posted by Lutherans, and focuses his ire on "Rome's Cyber defenders", all of this as a reason to post a biased presentation of a Papal bull from the middle ages, closing with

"So when Rome's cyber-defenders bring up Luther's attitude toward the Jews, respond back with Decet Romanum, and ask them if they think the bull disproves the Roman church.

It would seem to me that by focusing onto defenders of the "Roman church" all of the ire that (according to the Lutheran author of the book favorably reviewed by the Lutheran blogger) should instead be directed at Nazis, prominent German Lutherans, the Church of England and mainline US protestants, the author says more about his own relationship with the Catholic Church than he does about Luther's relationship with the Holocaust.