Posted on 08/11/2018 11:26:52 AM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
On Oct. 31, 1517, Luther nailed a copy of his 95 Theses to the wooden doors of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. In his theses, Luther criticized the pope and Catholic Church practices like the selling of indulgences for redemption.
But Luther wrote more than just the 95 Theses. He’s also the author of a corpus of virulent anti-Jewish writings. Over the next 30 years, as Protestantism took root, Luther evolved from being tolerant of Jews, hopeful they could become good Christians, to being disgusted with them. He described Jews as blasphemous, contaminators and murderers who should be expelled by Protestant authorities.
In the book The Jews and Their Lies, Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent’s brood, and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them…”
Others ask whether this is an anachronistic reading of history. Luther certainly was not the only one of his time to bash Jews. Plus, Luther also attacked Turks, Islam, and the papacy.
“This is precisely the opportunity to ask those kinds of questions,” said Dean Bell, professor of history at Spertus Institute for Jewish Learning and Leadership in Chicago.
Luther didn’t start off writing so spitefully of Jews. In 1523 he wrote the essay “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew,” hopeful that Jews would see the ties between the Old Testament and Jesus’ doctrines...
About 20 years later, though, he had lost sympathy. “Even now they cannot give up their inane raving boast that they are the chosen people of God, after they have been dispersed and rejected for 1,500 years!”
In 2015, the German Protestant Church expressed official guilt over Luther’s Jew hate.
(Excerpt) Read more at tabletmag.com ...
ping to self
Speaking as a Catholic, I am no fan of Martin Luther, especially considering he arguably is responsible for the current mess that occurred in Christianity as a whole with the Reformation. I also want to make clear that I am NOT fond of anti-Semitism, and if I had to choose between sparing Judaism and Islam, spare Israel or the Middle East, I’d spare the former over the latter any day of the week.
That BEING said, however... Luther ultimately has a valid point regarding the Talmud (NOT the Jewish people themselves, I want to stress this point to make sure there are NOT any misunderstandings). I may have no problem with the Jews themselves (heck, I won’t mind one bit that they not believe Jesus is not the Messiah as long as they at LEAST adhere strictly to the Old Testament, or the written Torah in other words), but I do have severe problems with the Talmud and its teachings, which goes against even what God Himself advocated in the Old Testament/Torah, let alone what the New Testament said. Heck, what the Talmud advocates that adherents to that book do to Gentiles (or “Goyem”, as they call them) such as lie, cheat, steal from, and even commit premeditated murder against them due to Jewish people being superior to them, is literally no different from the Islam concept of Taqqiya in the Koran. And if that’s something that makes the Islam religion irredeemably bad, it’s also something that makes Talmudic Judaism irredeemably bad as well. Heck, Nicholas Donin actually exposed some passages from the Talmud to the Church, and, him originally being Jewish before converting to Catholicism, he obviously isn’t an anti-Semite.
It going against God’s explicit Commandments in the Old Testament isn’t even the WORST thing about the Talmud, heck, even their disgusting treatment of Jesus and the Virgin Mary wasn’t the worst thing about it either (again, I can forgive that since not everyone’s going to like Jesus or the Virgin Mary, though I would ask they at least show some respect for the uniform). The absolute WORST thing about the Talmud... was its rather disgusting and disrespectful treatment of God the Father Himself, where they made Him so dumb and weak, despite His explicitly being omniscient and omnipotent, respectively, in the Old Testament, that they not only had a Rabbi, who, religious leader or not is STILL a mortal compared to God, actually managed to beat God in a debate, but also had their stating that they not only no longer listen to heavenly voices after the encounter at Mt. Sinai, but they also effectively restrained God to such an extent that He’s not allowed to do ANYTHING without a majority vote from the Rabbinic council. Don’t believe me? Read the passage for yourself:
“Since God already gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Mt. Sinai we no longer pay attention to heavenly voices. God must submit to the decisions of a majority vote of the rabbis.”
The passage was from Babylonic Talmud Bava Metzia 59b.
…
...Seriously? At least with the Old and New Testaments, it’s made clear that God actually could do worse to the mortals than what he did if he so desired, but restrained himself without effectively being forced to restrain himself at gunpoint by mortals, while here, it sounded more like the Rabbis basically weakened him and made him utterly dependent on them. I wouldn’t worship a weak God like that, one who is restrained by mortals. If anything, had God saw how the Jewish people acted right there in the passage, Chosen People or not, He’d probably behave to them like Kefka did when the Returners rejected his nihilistic views in Final Fantasy VI (https://youtu.be/I-cdwDnryY0 ). At least that guy wasn’t utterly restrained by a plurality or even one person, even if Kefka was a complete psychopath. And personally, I’d prefer an omnipotent and omniscient God who has absolutely no self-restraint regarding his actions and doesn’t even CARE if people get hurt as a result of his actions over a so-called “Omnipotent” and “Omniscient” God who is literally rendered incapable of doing anything unless some council decided it by majority vote by mortals whom God is supposed to be superior to. Jeez... as bad as Islam is, at least Islam actually TREATS their god with the respect he actually deserved as such, made clear he is superior to mortals, just like we Christians were supposed to do with God, acknowledge that He is superior to us in every way and that we if anything are mere insects compared to him, heck, what the Jews of the Old Testament were supposed to be to God as well. To sum it up, disrespectful treatment of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary is ONE thing, disrespectful treatment of God the Father himself is a whole different kettle of fish.
And yeah, I also get very angry when the Jewish people use “anti-Semitism” as effectively the same thing as the race-card or race-baiting, and if that’s actually promoted by the Talmud, that makes it all the MORE reason to get rid of it. And quite frankly, it gets annoying when they constantly act like they’re the only victims of the Holocaust and constantly ignore the other victims such as Romani, Poles, disabled people, heck, even Christians (yes, Christians WERE also victims of the holocaust as well, and in fact, ironically, they actually had a bit more of a body count than the Jewish people did in the camps), and even claim we Christians engineered the Holocaust (no, we didn’t, pagan Nazis did, and if anything, it was us Christians that tried to put a stop to it, many of whom risked our lives to save as many as possible.). It was annoying when Eli Weisel gave a lot of anti-Christian remarks and blamed us for it, and I respect the guy otherwise for giving a full account in Night for what happened in the Holocaust and how horrific it was.
Besides, technically, Karl Marx had a bit more of a basis for the Holocaust than the Reformation, considering the “Final Solution” referred to the so-called “Jewish Question” that Karl Marx posed earlier. Well, him and Nietzsche (Considering that guy was the father of Nihilism and also made it clear he hated God, I really doubt his sister was the sole anti-Semite or that she just added it to his works). That’s not to say Martin Luther had NO responsibility whatsoever regarding the Holocaust, because his works may have been used there, but Marx and Nietzsche were a lot more open about it and had openly advocated for anti-Semitism, while Luther at least kept his anti-Semitic views to his private writings.
And I want to make this clear yet again: I may have my issues with the Talmud, want it gone especially when it goes against what the Torah advocates and is ultimately NOT in the best interest of the Jewish people under even an Old Testament view of things, let alone a Christian view of things, but I do NOT tolerate anti-Semitism and have no intention of advocating for it. I would not advocate for the Holocaust or anything like that. They are STILL God’s Chosen people ultimately, so I have zero desire to eliminate them in terms of killing them. Now, I would prefer mass-conversions from Judaism to Christianity, preferably Catholicism, but any Christian sect will do. But beyond that, I have zero quarrel with the Jewish people themselves.
The most offensive part of the article is the idea of destroying a 500 year old sculpure on a world heritage site because it offends some people. That’s absurd.
No kidding. I could understand, say, tearing down Lenin and Stalin’s statues or even Karl Marx’s statues since they overall created a truly insidious ideology and practice that shouldn’t be repeated (and raising statues in their honor would imply what they did actually SHOULD be embraced). But Luther’s church, while it does have some rather off-color statements about Jews to say the very least, is still first and foremost a church, which shouldn’t be demolished for any reason. At most, we should turn it into a Catholic Church.
Indeed. Based on charges of both Catholic and Luther, it seems the Jews of that day were not exactly overall endearing themselves to the people , but neither did they in the time of Christ or under Moses, being rebellious (me too) and whom "provoked his spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips," (Psalms 106:33)
Yet while Biblical strong reproof of a people group is not wrong when out of right motive (love for God, His Truth and people), there is a difference btwn that and being incited to carnal railings and vengeful wishes and treatment as if wishing their damnation. And if Moses was wrong to be provoked to sin (by exalting himself in exasperation), how much more so much of the latter-day crass and vindictive speech by Luther against Jews and certain avocations of persecution (akin to treating them as if they were devout followers of Muhammad).
Yet even though the Holy Spirit rightly charged by Paul that the Jewish nation,
both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. (1 Thessalonians 2:15-16)
Yet Paul, like long-suffering Moses was willing to be damned if it meant their salvation. Which is what we see missing in the old Luther. And which should be in me for anyone.
I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: (Romans 9:1-3)
For that saying you can be called an anti-Catholic and or an anti-Semite
Bear in mind that what we see in this little pamphlet is not everything that Luther ever said about the Jewish people.
And while certainly not acceptable, it was also far lighter than most of what everyone else at the time was saying... and for that matter, DOING.
In other words, Luther speaks like a 16th century man, and people hate him for speaking like a 16th century man and treat him as if he was so much worse than every other 16th century man out there.
You will likely still be called an antisemite even if you provide an objective analysis,
I may have no problem with the Jews themselves (heck, I won’t mind one bit that they not believe Jesus is not the Messiah as long as they at LEAST adhere strictly to the Old Testament, or the written Torah in other words)
Then how can you love the Jews if you do not seek their salvation. Which cannot be as under the law, since no one adheres strictly to it in word and spirit.
what the Talmud advocates that adherents to that book do to Gentiles (or “Goyem”, as they call them) such as lie, cheat, steal from, and even commit premeditated murder against them due to Jewish people being superior to them, is literally no different from the Islam concept of Taqqiya in the Koran. And if that’s something that makes the Islam religion irredeemably bad, it’s also something that makes Talmudic Judaism irredeemably bad as well. Heck, Nicholas Donin actually exposed some passages from the Talmud to the Church, and, him originally being Jewish before converting to Catholicism, he obviously isn’t an anti-Semite.
But documentation is needed?
“Since God already gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Mt. Sinai we no longer pay attention to heavenly voices. God must submit to the decisions of a majority vote of the rabbis.” The passage was from Babylonic Talmud Bava Metzia 59b.
Sounds too much like,
The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating...Indeed, it is equal to that of Jesus Christ...When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man...Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary [who is said to be all but almighty herself]...The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command. - The Faith of Millions." The Credentials of the Catholic Religion, pp. 255-256 (Nihil obstat; Rev. Lawrence Gollner, Censor Librorum Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend; March 16, 1974)
Indeed, yet you somehow only focus on Luther, and not his heritage, and which reveals bias or a lack of knowledge or objectivity. That being the case, i am sorry you provoked me to provide some of Rome;s attitude:
And referring to his exasperated angst against a recalcitrant antagonistic Judaism, the question is whether what did Luther do that was worse than Rome?
|
Any emphasis throughout is mine. ►Canons of the 4th Lateran Council (convoked by Pope Innocent III with the papal bull of April 19, 1213) CANON 67 Text. The more the Christians are restrained from the practice of usury, the more are they oppressed in this matter by the treachery of the Jews, so that in a short time they exhaust the resources of the Christians. Wishing, therefore, in this matter to protect the Christians against cruel oppression by the Jews, we ordain in this decree that if in the future under any pretext Jews extort from Christians oppressive and immoderate interest, the partnership of the Christians shall be denied them till they have made suitable satisfaction for their excesses... Lastly, we decree that the Jews be compelled by the same punishment (avoidance of commercial intercourse) to make satisfaction for the tithes and offerings due to the churches, which the Christians were accustomed to supply from their houses and other possessions before these properties, under whatever title, fell into the hands of the Jews, that thus the churches may be safeguarded against loss. CANON 68 Summary. Jews and Saracens [a generic term for Muslims] of both sexes in every Christian province must be distinguished from the Christian by a difference of dress. On Passion Sunday and the last three days of Holy Week they may not appear in public. Text: In some provinces a difference in dress distinguishes the Jews or Saracens from the Christians, but in certain others such a confusion has grown up that they cannot be distinguished by any difference. Thus it happens at times that through error Christians have relations with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews and Saracens with Christian women. Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress. Particularly, since it may be read in the writings of Moses [Numbers 15:37-41], that this very law has been enjoined upon them. Moreover, during the last three days before Easter and especially on Good Friday, they shall not go forth in public at all, for the reason that some of them on these very days, as we hear, do not blush to go forth better dressed and are not afraid to mock the Christians who maintain the memory of the most holy Passion by wearing signs of mourning. This, however, we forbid most severely, that any one should presume at all to break forth in insult to the Redeemer. And since we ought not to ignore any insult to Him who blotted out our disgraceful deeds, we command that such impudent fellows be checked by the secular princes by imposing them proper punishment so that they shall not at all presume to blaspheme Him who was crucified for us. [Note by Schroeder: In 581 the Synod of Macon enacted in canon 14 that from Thursday in Holy Week until Easter Sunday, .Jews may not in accordance with a decision of King Childebert appear in the streets and in public places. Mansi, IX, 934; Hefele-Leclercq, 111, 204. In 1227 the Synod of Narbonne in canon 3 ruled: "That Jews may be distinguished from others, we decree and emphatically command that in the center of the breast (of their garments) they shall wear an oval badge, the measure of one finger in width and one half a palm in height. We forbid them moreover, to work publicly on Sundays and on festivals. And lest they scandalize Christians or be scandalized by Christians, we wish and ordain that during Holy Week they shall not leave their houses at all except in case of urgent necessity, and the prelates shall during that week especially have them guarded from vexation by the Christians." Mansi, XXIII, 22; Hefele-Leclercq V 1453. Many decrees similar to these in content were issued by synods before and after this Lateran Council. Hefele-Leclercq, V and VI; Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the XIlIth Century, Philadelphia, 1933.] CANON 70 Summary. Jews who have received baptism are to be restrained by the prelates from returning to their former rite. Text. Some (Jews), we understand, who voluntarily approached the waters of holy baptism, do not entirely cast off the old man that they may more perfectly put on the new one, because, retaining remnants of the former rite, they obscure by such a mixture the beauty of the Christian religion. But since it is written: "Accursed is the man that goeth on the two ways" (Ecclus. 2:14), and "a garment that is woven together of woolen and linen" (Deut. 22: ii) ought not to be put on, we decree that such persons be in every way restrained b the prelates from the observance of the former rite, that, having given themselves of their own free will to the Christian religion, salutary coercive action may preserve them in its observance, since not to know the way of the Lord is a lesser evil than to retrace one's steps after it is known. (From H. J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: Text, Translation and Commentary, (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1937). pp. 236-296) — http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/344latj.html ► Popes Against the Jews In The Popes Against the Jews : The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, historian David Kertzer notes, “the legislation enacted in the 1930s by the Nazis in their Nuremberg Laws and by the Italian Fascists with their racial laws—which stripped the Jews of their rights as citizens—was modeled on measures that the [Roman Catholic] Church itself had enforced for as long as it was in a position to do so” (9). In 1466, in festivities sponsored by Pope Paul II, Jews were made to race naked through the streets of the city. A particularly evocative later account describes them: “Races were run on each of the eight days of the Carnival by horses, asses and buffaloes, old men, lads, children, and Jews. Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them, and at the same time, more amusing for the spectators. They ran from the Arch of Domitian to the Church of St. Mark at the end of the Corso at full tilt, amid Rome’s taunting shrieks of encouragement and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily. Two centuries later, these practices, now deemed indecorous and unbefitting the dignity of the Holy City, were stopped by Clement IX. In their place the Pope assessed a heavy tax on the Jews to help pay the costs of the city’s Carnival celebrations. But various other Carnival rites continued. For many years the rabbis of the ghetto were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the streets to the jeers of the crow, pelted by a variety of missiles. Such rites were not peculiar to Rome. In Pisa in the eighteenth century, for example, it was customary each year, as part of Carnival, for students to chase after the fattest Jew in the city, capture him, weigh him, and then make him give them his weight in sugar-coated almonds. In 1779, Pius VI resurrected some of the Carnival rites that had been neglected in recent years. Most prominent among them was the feudal rite of homage, in which ghetto officials, made to wear special clothes, stood before an unruly mob in a crowded piazza, making an offering to Rome’s governors. It was this practice that occasioned the formal plea from the ghetto to Pope Gregory XVI in 1836. The Jews argued that such rites should be abandoned, and cited previous popes who had ordered them halted. They asked that, in his mercy, the Pope now do the same. On November 5, the Pope met with his secretary of state to discuss the plea. A note on the secretary of state’s copy of the petition, along with his signature, records the Pope’s decision: “It is not opportune to make any innovation.” The annual rites continued. “When all is said and done, the [Roman Catholic] Church’s claim of lack of responsibility for the kind of anti-Semitism that made the Holocaust possible comes down to this: The Roman Catholic Church never called for, or sanctioned, the mass murder of the Jews. Yes, the Jews should be stripped of their rights as equal citizens. Yes, they should be kept from contact with the rest of society. But Christian Charity and Christian theology forbade good Christians to round them up and murder them.” See more in part 5 of a series (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 . ► Pope Leo XII As cardinal vicar of Rome, Della Genga [the new Pope Leo XII] had been outraged to discover that not all of the Holy City’s Jews had returned to their ghetto following the restoration of the papal regime. One of his major projects as cardinal vicar had been to oversee a modest enlargement of the ghetto, to undermine the Jews’ complaint that it was impossible for them all to fit in the densely packed space within the old ghetto walls. Now, as pope, he redoubled these efforts. In 1823, in one of his first pontifical acts [which the Church can officially dismiss as if it were nothing], Leo XII ordered the Jews back into the ghetto, “to overcome the evil consequences of the freedom that [they] have enjoyed… In the first year of his papacy, he had the Holy Office investigate the extent to which the old restrictions on the Jews in the Papal States were still being enforced. The goal as an internal Inquisition report expressed it, was “to contain the wickedness of the obstinate Jews so that the danger of perversion of the Catholic faithful” could be avoided. The report expressed dismay that some Jews lived outside the ghettoes, some traveled from place to place without the special permits they were required to get from the local office of the bishop or the inquisitor, and some had opened stores and businesses beyond the ghetto’s walls... The new Pope’s efforts to enforce these restrictions on the Jews relied on the bureaucracy of control provided by the Inquisition and by various other agencies of the Papal States. — http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/02/popes-against-jews-part-5-you-will.html Note that according to the Catechism: 2032 "To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls." — http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/02/popes-against-jews-part-3-positing-big.html What follows falls under judgments on human affairs which is justified as being necessary for the salvation of souls. ►Cum nimis absurdum Cum nimis absurdum was a papal bull issued by Pope Paul IV dated 14 July 1555 [after Luther]. It takes its name from its first words:[1] "Since it is absurd and utterly inconvenient that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal slavery..." The bull revoked all the rights of the Jewish community and placed religious and economic restrictions on Jews in the Papal States, renewed anti-Jewish legislation and subjected Jews to various degradations and restrictions on their personal freedom. The bull established the Roman Ghetto and required the Jews of Rome, which had existed as a community since before Christian times and numbered about 2,000 at the time, to live in it. The Ghetto was a walled quarter with three gates that were locked at night. Jews were also restricted to one synagogue per city. Under the bull, Jewish males were required to wear a pointed yellow hat, and Jewish females a yellow kerchief (see yellow badge). Jews were required to attend compulsory Catholic sermons on the Jewish shabbat. The bull also subjected Jews to various other restrictions such as a prohibition on property ownership and practising medicine among Christians. Jews were allowed to practice only unskilled jobs, as rag men, secondhand dealers [2] or fish mongers. They could also be pawnbrokers. Paul IV's successor, Pope Pius IV, enforced the creation of other ghettos in most Italian towns, and his successor, Pope Pius V, recommended them to other bordering states. The Papal States ceased to exist on 20 September 1870 when they were incorporated in the Kingdom of Italy, but the requirement that Jews live in the ghetto was only formally abolished by the Italian state in 1882. Though the Roman and other ghettos have now been abolished, the bull has never been revoked. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_nimis_absurdum ►Cum nimis absurdum text Laws and ordinances to be followed by Jews living in the Holy See [decreed by the] Bishop [of Rome, the Pope] Paul, servant of the servants of God, for future recollection. Since it is completely senseless and inappropriate to be in a situation where Christian piety allows the Jews (whose guilt—all of their own doing—has condemned them to eternal slavery) access to our society and even to live among us; indeed, they are without gratitude to Christians, as, instead of thanks for gracious treatment, they return invective, and among themselves, instead of the slavery, which they deserve, they manage to claim superiority: we, who recently learned that these very Jews have insolently invaded Rome from a number of the Papal States, territories and domains, to the extent that not only have they mingled with Christians (even when close to their churches) and wearing no identifying garments, but to dwell in homes, indeed, even in the more noble [dwellings] of the states, territories and domains in which they lingered, conducting business from their houses and in the streets and dealing in real estate; they even have nurses and housemaids and other Christians as hired servants. And they would dare to perpetrate a wide variety of other dishonorable things, contemptuous of the [very] name Christian... 1. Desiring firstly, as much as we can with [the help of] God, to beneficially provide, by this [our decree] that will forever be in force, we ordain that for the rest of time, in the City as well as in other states, territories and domains of the Church of Rome itself, all Jews are to live in only one [quarter] to which there is only one entrance and from which there is but one exit, 2. Furthermore, in each and every state, territory and domain in which they are living, they will have only one synagogue, in its customary location, and they will construct no other new ones, nor can they own buildings. Furthermore, all of their synagogues, besides the one allowed, are to be destroyed and demolished. And the properties, which they currently own, they must sell to Christians within a period of time to be determined by the magistrates themselves... § 3. Moreover, concerning the matter that Jews should be recognizable everywhere: [to this end] men must wear a hat, women, indeed, some other evident sign, yellow in color, that must not be concealed or covered by any means, and must be tightly affixed [sewn]; and furthermore, they can not be absolved or excused from the obligation to wear the hat or other emblem of this type to any extent whatever and under any pretext whatsoever of their rank or prominence or of their ability to tolerate [this] adversity... 7. And they may not presume in any way to play, eat or fraternize with Christians... 9. Moreover, these Jews are to be limited to the trade of rag-picking, or "cencinariae" (as it is said in the vernacular), and they cannot trade in grain, barley or any other commodity essential to human welfare. 10. And those among them who are physicians, even if summoned and inquired after, cannot attend or take part in the care of Christians. 11.And they are not to be addressed as superiors [even] by poor Christians... 14. And, should they, in any manner whatsoever, be deficient in the foregoing, it would be treated as a crime:..just as if they were rebels and criminals by the jurisdiction in which the offense takes place. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_nimis_absurdum ►Inquisition In some parts of Spain towards the end of the 14th century, there was a wave of violent anti-Judaism, encouraged by the preaching of Ferrand Martinez, Archdeacon of Ecija. In the pogroms of June 1391 in Seville, hundreds of Jews were killed, and the synagogue was completely destroyed. The number of people killed was also high in other cities, such as Córdoba, Valencia and Barcelona.[32 One of the consequences of these pogroms was the mass conversion of thousands of surviving Jews. Forced baptism was contrary to the law of the Catholic Church, and theoretically anybody who had been forcibly baptized could legally return to Judaism. However, this was very narrowly interpreted. Legal definitions of the time theoretically acknowledged that a forced baptism was not a valid sacrament, but confined this to cases where it was literally administered by physical force. A person who had consented to baptism under threat of death or serious injury was still regarded as a voluntary convert, and accordingly forbidden to revert to Judaism.[33] After the public violence, many of the converted "felt it safer to remain in their new religion."[34] Thus, after 1391, a new social group appeared and were referred to as conversos or New Christians. King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile established the Spanish Inquisition in 1478. In contrast to the previous inquisitions, it operated completely under royal Christian authority, though staffed by clergy and orders, and independently of the Holy See [but the prior Fourth Lateran Council did require Christians leaders to exterminate all the heretics its prelates convicted under his rule, or else Catholics were not bound to obey him]. It operated in Spain and in all Spanish colonies and territories, which included the Canary Islands, the Spanish Netherlands, the Kingdom of Naples, and all Spanish possessions in North, Central, and South America. It primarily targeted forced converts from Islam (Moriscos, Conversos and secret Moors) and from Judaism (Conversos, Crypto-Jews and Marranos) — both groups still resided in Spain after the end of the Islamic control of Spain — who came under suspicion of either continuing to adhere to their old religion or of having fallen back into it. In 1492 all Jews who had not converted were expelled from Spain, and those who remained became subject to the Inquisition.— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition ►The Inquisition While many people associate the Inquisition with Spain and Portugal, it was actually instituted by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in Rome. A later pope, Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition, in 1233, to combat the heresy of the Abilgenses, a religious sect in France. In the beginning, the Inquisition dealt only with Christian heretics and did not interfere with the affairs of Jews. However, disputes about Maimonides’ books (which addressed the synthesis of Judaism and other cultures) provided a pretext for harassing Jews and, in 1242, the Inquisition condemned the Talmud and burned thousands of volumes. In 1288, the first mass burning of Jews on the stake took place in France. In 1481 the Inquisition started in Spain and ultimately surpassed the medieval Inquisition, in both scope and intensity. Conversos (Secret Jews) and New Christians were targeted because of their close relations to the Jewish community, many of whom were Jews in all but their name. Fear of Jewish influence led Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand to write a petition to the Pope asking permission to start an Inquisition in Spain. In 1483 Tomas de Torquemada became the inquisitor-general for most of Spain, he set tribunals in many cities. Also heading the Inquisition in Spain were two Dominican monks, Miguel de Morillo and Juan de San Martin. First, they arrested Conversos and notable figures in Seville; in Seville more than 700 Conversos were burned at the stake and 5,000 repented. Tribunals were also opened in Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia. An Inquisition Tribunal was set up in Ciudad Real, where 100 Conversos were condemned, and it was moved to Toledo in 1485. Between 1486-1492, 25 auto de fes were held in Toledo, 467 people were burned at the stake and others were imprisoned. The Inquisition finally made its way to Barcelona, where it was resisted at first because of the important place of Spanish Conversos in the economy and society. More than 13,000 Conversos were put on trial during the first 12 years of the Spanish Inquisition. Hoping to eliminate ties between the Jewish community and Conversos, the Jews of Spain were expelled in 1492... The next phase of the Inquisition began in Portugal in 1536: King Manuel I had initially asked Pope Leo X to begin an inquisition in 1515, but only after Leo's death in 1521 did Pope Paul III agree to Manuel's request. Thousands of Jews came to Portugal after the 1492 expulsion. A Spanish style Inquisition was constituted and tribunals were set up in Lisbon and other cities. Among the Jews who died at the hands of the Inquisition were well-known figures of the period such as Isaac de Castro Tartas, Antonio Serrao de Castro and Antonio Jose da Silva. The Inquisition never stopped in Spain and continued until the late 18th century. By the second half of the 18th century, the Inquisition abated, due to the spread of enlightened ideas and lack of resources. The last auto de fe in Portugal took place on October 27, 1765. Not until 1808, during the brief reign of Joseph Bonaparte, was the Inquisition abolished in Spain. An estimated 31,912 heretics were burned at the stake, 17,659 were burned in effigy and 291,450 made reconciliations in the Spanish Inquisition. In Portugal, about 40,000 cases were tried, although only 1,800 were burned, the rest made penance [or else]. The Inquisition was not limited to Europe; it also spread to Spanish and Portugese colonies in the New World and Asia. Many Jews and Conversos fled from Portugal and Spain to the New World seeking greater security and economic opportunities. Branches of the Portugese Inquisition were set up in Goa and Brazil. Spanish tribunals and auto de fes were set up in Mexico, the Philippine Islands, Guatemala, Peru, New Granada and the Canary Islands. By the late 18th century, most of these were dissolved. — http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html: ► Goa Inquisition The Goa Inquisition was the office of the Portuguese Inquisition acting in Portuguese India, and in the rest of the Portuguese Empire in Asia. It was established in 1560, briefly suppressed from 1774–1778, and finally abolished in 1812.[1] Based on the records that survive, H. P. Salomon and I. S. D. Sassoon state that between the Inquisition's beginning in 1561 and its temporary abolition in 1774, some 16,202 persons were brought to trial by the Inquisition. Of this number, it is known that 57 were sentenced to death and executed; another 64 were burned in effigy. Others were subjected to lesser punishments or penance, but the fate of many of those tried by the Inquisition is unknown.[2] The Inquisition was established to punish apostate New Christians—Jews and Muslims who converted to Catholicism, as well as their descendants—who were now suspected of practising their ancestral religion in secret.[2] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition ►Portuguese Inquisition ...was formally established in Portugal in 1536 at the request of the King of Portugal, João III. Manuel I had asked for the installation of the Inquisition in 1515 to fulfill the commitment of marriage with Maria of Aragon, but it was only after his death that Pope Paul III acquiesced. In the period after the Medieval Inquisition, it was one of three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Spanish Inquisition and Roman Inquisition. The major target of the Portuguese Inquisition were those who had converted from Judaism to Catholicism, the Conversos, also known as New Christians or Marranos, who were suspected of secretly practising Judaism. Many of these were originally Spanish Jews, who had left Spain for Portugal. The number of victims is estimated around 40000.[1] Spanish Inquisition On November 1, 1478, Pope Sixtus IV published the Papal bull, Exigit Sinceras Devotionis Affectus, through which he gave the monarchs exclusive authority to name the inquisitors in their kingdoms...In 1482 the pope was still trying to maintain control over the Inquisition and to gain acceptance for his own attitude towards the New Christians, which was generally more moderate than that of the Inquisition and the local rulers. In 1483, Jews were expelled from all of Andalusia. Though the pope wanted to crack down on abuses, Ferdinand pressured him to promulgate a new bull, threatening that he would otherwise separate the Inquisition from Church authority.[21][22] Sixtus did so on October 17, 1483, naming Tomás de Torquemada Inquisidor General of Aragón, Valencia and Catalonia. ... Henry Kamen estimates that, of a population of approximately 80,000 Jews, about one half or 40,000 chose emigration.[27] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Inquisition ►Tomás de Torquemada The Pope went on to appoint a number of inquisitors for the Spanish Kingdoms in early 1482, including Torquemada. A year later he was named Grand Inquisitor of Spain, which he remained until his death in 1498. In the fifteen years under his direction, the Spanish Inquisition grew from the single tribunal at Seville to a network of two dozen 'Holy Offices'.[12] As Grand Inquisitor, Torquemada reorganized the Spanish Inquisition (originally based in Castile in 1478), establishing tribunals in Sevilla, Jaén, Córdoba, Ciudad Real and (later) Saragossa. His quest was to rid Spain of all heresy. The Spanish chronicler Sebastián de Olmedo called him "the hammer of heretics, the light of Spain, the savior of his country, the honor of his order". Under the edict of March 31, 1492, known as the Alhambra Decree, approximately 200,000 Jews left Spain. Following the Alhambra decree of 1492, approximately 50,000 Jews took baptism so as to remain in Spain; however, many of these—known as "Marranos" from Corinthians II, a contraction of anathema—were "crypto-jews" and secretly kept some of their Jewish traditions. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada Related: A Catholic Timeline of Events Relating to Jews, Anti-Judaism, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust From the 3rd Century to the Beginning of the Third Millennium. (http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/resources/Timeline.htm) • In addition is The Vatican did not even formally recognize Israel until 1993. A bit late. ► Papal–Israel relations Until 1948 the Pope was motivated by the traditional Vatican opposition to Zionism. Vatican opposition to a Jewish homeland stemmed largely from theological doctrines regarding Judaism.[40] In 1904, the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl obtained an audience with Pope Pius X in the hope of persuading the pontiff to support the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The pope's response was: "Non possumus"--"We cannot." In 1917, Pius X's successor, Pope Benedict XV, equally refused to support any concept for a Jewish state. Minerbi writes that when a League of Nations mandate were being proposed for Palestine, the Vatican was disturbed by the prospect of a (Protestant) British mandate over the Holy Land, but a Jewish state was anathema to it.[27][41] On 22 June 1943, Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, the Apostolic Delegate to Washington D.C. wrote to US President Franklin Roosevelt, asking him to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. ... If the greater part of Palestine is given to the Jewish people, this would be a severe blow to the religious attachment of Catholics to this land. To have the Jewish people in the majority would be to interfere with the peaceful exercise of these rights in the Holy Land already vested in Catholics. It is true that at one time Palestine was inhabited by the Hebrew Race, but there is no axiom in history to substantiate the necessity of a people returning to a country they left nineteen centuries before.[42] The Vatican view of the Near East was dominated by a Cold War perception that Arab Muslims are conservative but religious, whereas Israeli Zionists are modernist but atheists. The Vatican's then Foreign Minister, Domenico Tardini (without being even a bishop, but a close collaborator of Pius XII) said to the French ambassador in November 1957, according to an Israeli diplomatic dispatch from Rome to Jerusalem: "I have always been of the opinion that there never was an overriding reason for this state to be established. It was the fault of the western states. Its existence is an inherent risk factor for war in the Middle East. Now, Israel exists, and there is certainly no way to destroy it, but every day we pay the price of this error."[45] by initially siding with Palestinian claims for compensations on political, social and financial levels, the Vatican shaped its Middle Eastern policy since 1948 upon two pillars. One was based on political and theological reservations against Zionism,... the Holy See has also maintained reservations of its own. The more established the Zionist Yishuv became in Mandatory Palestine, the more political reservations the Vatican added to its initial theological inhibitions.[51] On 26 May 1955, when the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra performed Beethoven's Seventh Symphony at the Vatican as an act of respect for Pius XII, the Vatican still refrained from mentioning the name of the State, preferring instead to describe the orchestra as a collection of "Jewish musicians of fourteen different nationalities."[53] Paul VI was Pope from 21 June 1963 to 6 August 1978. He strongly defended inter-religious dialogue in the spirit of Nostra Aetate. He was also the first Pope to mention the Palestinian people by name...On 15 January 1973, the Pope met Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir at the Vatican, which was the first meeting between a Pope and an Israeli Prime Minister. At the meeting, the Pope brought up the issues of peace in the Middle East, refugees and the status of the holy places, but no agreement was reached.[58] According to Meir's own account of the meeting, the Pope criticized the Israeli government for its treatment of the Palestinians, and she said in reply: Your Holiness, do you know what my earliest memory is? A pogrom in Kiev. When we were merciful and when we had no homeland and when we were weak, we were led to the gas chambers.[59] Relations since 1993[edit] The opening towards the State of Israel by the Vatican was partially a result of Israel's effective control over the entire Holy City since 1967. This forced the Vatican to introduce a pragmatic dimension to its well-known declaratory policy of political denial. Hence, since 1967, Vatican diplomacy vis-à-vis Israel began to waver between two parameters:
The establishment of full diplomatic relations in 1993–94, on the other hand, was a belated political consequence of the theological change towards Judaism as reflected in Nostra Aetate. It was also a result of the new political reality, which began with the Madrid COnference and later continued with the Oslo peace process, after which the Vatican could not continue to ignore a State that even the Palestinians had initiated formal relations with. Pope Benedict XVI has declared that he wishes to maintain a positive Christian-Jewish and Vatican-Israel relationship. Indeed, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state, Benedict stated: "The Holy See joins you in giving thanks to the Lord that the aspirations of the Jewish people for a home in the land of their fathers have been fulfilled,"[72] which may be seen as a theological justification of the return of the Jewish People to Israel – indeed, an acceptance that has placed all previous Catholic denials of Zionism in the shade. On the other hand, he has also stressed the political neutrality of the Holy See in internal Mideast conflicts. Like John Paul II, he was disappointed by the non-resolution of the 1993 Fundamental Accord; and like his predecessor, he also expressed support for a Palestinian state alongside Israel. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See%E2%80%93Israel_relations ► Evangelical support for Jews. In contrast, 46% of white evangelical (blacks only make up 6% of evangelicals) Protestants, versus 33% of Prots and only 21% of Catholics say that the U.S. is not providing enough support for Israel. (2014) — http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/27/strong-support-for-israel-in-u-s-cuts-across-religious-lines/ As for the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, asked whether they sympathize with either side, 72% of white evangelicals sided with Israel, versus 56% of Prots and 46% of Caths overall. — http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/3-19-13%20Foreign%20Policy%20Release.pdf Of course, this is consistent with the stats which shows 82% of white evangelical Protestants say that Israel was given to the Jewish people by God, versus 64% of Prots and just 34% of white Catholics, while 45% of Catholics outright deny that it was (others do not know). — http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/03/more-white-evangelicals-than-american-jews-say-god-gave-israel-to-the-jewish-people/ ► Egregious ecumenism In addition, Rome being "friendlier"to Israel means not simply affirming Jews and the right to live in peace but also means affirming that Muslims worship the same God as Jews and Christians, that together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964) Which is blasphemous. For with Allah, we are not dealing with an utterly ambiguous "unknown god" as in Acts 17, which had no express revelation and could said to be the true God they were looking for. But Allah is much a distinct God, and in the name of this false deity are the contradictory and skewed Biblical stories of the Qur'an, besides adding its own, and which denies the very essence of the gospel, that of the Divine Son of God procuring salvation with His own sinless shed blood! Yet again and again popes comfort Muslims by assuring them they have the true God, while any gospel is largely replaced by platitudes for peace. Rome says Muslims the worship the same God as Catholics, "the one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth," and "strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan." -Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate 3, October 28, 1965 And, We feel sure that as representatives of Islam, you join in our prayers to the Almighty, that he may grant all African believers the desire for pardon and reconciliation so often commended in the Gospels and in the Qur’an... We gladly recall also those confessors of the Muslim faith who were the first to suffer death, in the year 1848, for refusing to transgress the precepts of their religion.” — Paul VI, address to the Islamic communities of Uganda, August 1, 1969. “I deliberately address you as brothers: that is certainly what we are, because we are members of the same human family, whose efforts, whether people realize it or not, tend toward God and the truth that comes from him. But we are especially brothers in God, who created us and whom we are trying to reach, in our own ways, through faith, prayer and worship, through the keeping of his law and through submission to his designs... “Dear Muslims, my brothers: I would like to add that we Christians, just like you, seek the basis and model of mercy in God himself, the God to whom your Book gives the very beautiful name of al-Rahman, while the Bible calls him al-Rahum, the Merciful One.” - John Paul II, address to representatives of Muslims of the Philippines, February 20, 1981 “As Christians and Muslims, we encounter one another in faith in the one God, our Creator and guide, our just and merciful judge. - John Paul II, address to representatives of the Muslims of Belgium, May 19, 1985 We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection...Both of us believe in one God, the only God, - John Paul II , address to the young Muslims of Morocco, August 19, 1985 Christians and Muslims, together with the followers of the Jewish religion, belong to what can be called ‘the tradition of Abraham.’..Our Creator and our final judge desires that we live together. Our God is a God of peace, who desires peace among those who live according to His commandments. Our God is the holy God who desires that those who call upon Him live in ways that are holy and upright. -John Paul II, address to Islamic leaders of Senegal, Dakar, February 22, 1992 -http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/interreligious/islam/vatican-council-and-papal-statements-on-islam.cfm |
It was indeed a Reformation, albeit as yet imperfect and incomplete, and a necessitated rebellion against the rebellious Catholic church.
For the FACT is that Catholic distinctives are not manifest in the the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
More like liberals sending them to jail. nor reformation.
That will not sit well with RC devotees who present Luther as an incarnation of the devil, while admitting no mistreatment by their popes.
I never saw it really cease, since Luther has often been invoked as fueling anti-antisemitism here, though it may be distinguished as ant--Judaism.
Could you restate that in English?
Could you restate that in English?
***
The Catholic/Protestant wars on FR are still going strong.
And it’s a typical gambit by the Catholics to invoke this little pamphlet as a reason to hate him.
Like, maybe 4-5 times in the last year, just on threads that I personally have perused.
So it gets tiresome.
If you have something to say, please say it in a declarative sentence. You appear to relish talking in a code only you believe you understand.
"Talking in a code?!" Go find someone else who cannot comprehend my response in post 55* , in context, and you both get back to us.
* Why not just get a few of your friends together and go pull down a Luther statue somewhere instead of reintroducing the Catholic-Protestant hate wars here on FR? Just how far back does your particular tribalist outrage extend?
I never saw it really cease, since Luther has often been invoked as fueling anti-antisemitism here, though it may be distinguished as ant--Judaism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.