Posted on 02/26/2010 1:08:31 AM PST by Gamecock
It was, as was his conduct.
Lies? Oath-breaking? Anti-semitism? Support of bigamy?
LOL! Are we talking about Martin Luther or the Medieval/Early Modern Roman Catholic Church?
BTW, Marysecretary, you might find this interesting: It comes from Geoffrey Parker's _The Thirty Years' War_, Second Edition, p.5:
By 1580, some 90 per cent of the nobles of Lower Austria were Protestant (almost all of them Lutherans), and the situation was similar in Upper Austria (except that several nobles became Calvinists). The Roman Catholic Church [!!!] in both duchies was moribund: parishes remained almost permanently vacant, congregations were abandoned, and the surviving establishments languished in an unedifying condition. Lower Austria in 1563 could boast 122 monasteries with a total of only 463 monks and 160 nuns, but 199 concubines, 55 wives and 443 children.
Please note the ratio of concubines to wives: almost 4:1. LOL!
Martin Luther.
Crude? Yes. As was the language of one of his adversaries, Thomas More.
I'd blush at the prospect of posting certain passages from More's _Responsio ad Lutherum_ on Free Republic.
...no, no, it MUST be the medieval/early modern Roman Catholic Church that we're talking about. The obvious choice if we're going to discuss such matters -- infidelity, anti-semitism, etc. -- during that era.
BTW, has any Church historian actually counted the number of bastard children fathered by medieval Churchmen before they became Pope? I know that Piccolomini fathered two bastards (both sons); can anyone think of any others begotten by other popes?
Nope.
Luther advocated an eight-point plan to get rid of the Jews either by religious conversion or by expulsion:
“First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. ...”
“Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. ...”
“Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. ...”
“Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. ...”
“Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. ...”
“Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them. ... Such money should now be used in ... the following [way]... Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed [a certain amount]...”
“Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow... For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.”
“If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews’ blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country” and “we must drive them out like mad dogs.”
You wrote:
“I’m sure I don’t need to give YOU a history lesson,...”
Nope, but I’ll help you with one in a minute.
“...but the word “catholic” is derived from a Greek word meaning universal. Ignatius of Antioch’s (around 106 AD) letter to the Christians at Smyrna is the first known use of the term and, oddly, there was NO (capital C) Catholic Church then.”
Here’s the lesson: even many Protestants put the phrase in caps. Cyril Richardson did so, for instance. Now, of course, Protestants can just try to have it both ways: “Oh, it doesn’t mean what we would take it to mean, but we’ll put it in caps to show it is sort of a proper noun without actually referring to a definite, visible body” blah, blah, blah. The simple fact is there was only one universal Church - the Catholic Church. That there is still only one universal Church - the Catholic Church. My Church. Not your puny, johnny-come-lately sect.
“He actually meant all the true members of the body of Christ. Go figure!!!”
And they were all Catholics - like me and my fellow Catholics and didn’t include a single Protestant in the group and it still doesn’t. Go figure.
However, there is a difference between making vicious proposals and actually doing such things...
“First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. ...”
“Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. ...”
Are you sure you're not thinking of the medieval/RC Europe here? Y'know, Christendom "properly defined"?
Synagogues were often razed/demolished during this period during the not infrequent pogroms. e.g.,
In 1995, archaeologists uncovered remains of the medieval synagogue on Vienna’s Judenplatz, the intended site of the city’s Holocaust memorial. The synagogue is known to have been demolished in a pogrom of 1420, during which the Jews of Vienna were murdered, expelled or forcibly baptized. The pogrom culminated with the burning at the stake of 200 Jews on March 12, 1421, an event still celebrated with a plaque at Judenplatz #2. The synagogue is thought to have been built in the 13th century (it is first mentioned in 1294), about a century after the Babenberg margraves allowed Jews to settle.
I also seem to remember synagogues being confiscated in France by Philip Augustus and given to the "Church" as a gift. The RC response was more or less "thank you very much."
Were such things ever done at Luther's bidding? I don't think so. And yet over the centuries, throughout RC Christendom progroms occurred which resulted in synagogues, property owned by jews and jews themselves being liquidated. Sometimes Church officials protested; other times, they did not.
“Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. ...”
Over the centuries, Jews had their Talmuds not just seized but seized and burned by order of RC authorities. The most recent Talmud burning was in Poland in 1757:
“Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. ...”
"Church" authorities were not averse to persecuting or even condemning to death rabbis that were thought to be guilty of blasphemy.
“Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them. ... Such money should now be used in ... the following [way]... Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed [a certain amount]...”
Wow! It looks as if Luther was cribbing Lateran IV (1215) here. Cf. Constitution 67. Moneylending by jews was restricted by canon law long before Luther's time (cf. Innocent III on crusader's not having to pay interest to jews while "bearing the cross").
“Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow... For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.”
Poor Luther. Sounds like he's cribbing from some canon lawyer again...
Now, back to the question of the number of bastards fathered by medieval Churchmen before they became Pope...
Luther said the Turks were favorable to the Catholics. Within a century, his followers behaved accordingly. And yes, I would plainly agree with the assertion that the French were allied with Protestants against Rome.
No reason to go back 6-7 centuries, unless for some unknown reason present day Churchmen are held responsible for this. Are they?
Oh, vlad...are you pretending to be obstinate about this, or do you really believe what you are saying? I can't make my point any clearer than I have. I'll try one more time.
There IS only one universal body of Christ. You can say Catholic or catholic, it does not really matter because it is a spiritual body - it always has been. Just because I was born into a Catholic family and baptized, I was not automatically a member of this body. I could have gone my whole life, doing all the things I was told to do, being a good little egg, and I would have gone to hell if I died because I never came to God through faith. There was belief, in general, but there was not faith. All my good deeds and receiving of the sacraments would have earned nothing. You come to God with empty hands and a heart of faith - not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us.
Put whatever label on your chest you want, go to whatever building you want, but you do it God's way or it is the highway (the highway to hell)!.
Why not? Luther died in 1546. Poor Piccolomini (who was an excellent writer, BTW) passed away in 1464. If posters on this thread can try to make hay bashing long-dead Luther, why can't I exercise my polemic skills by bringing up the various peccadilloes and crimes of the long-deceased medieval Popes? What's good for the goose...
unless for some unknown reason present day Churchmen are held responsible for this. Are they?
No, but perhaps present-day practitioners of "apologetics" -- both RC and Reformed -- should be held responsible for their one-sided histories. It's just as false and misleading to say that Galileo was burned at the stake by "the Inquisition" (da-da-DUM!), a canard which I read on a thread earlier today, as it is to pretend that Martin Luther's anti-semitism and other personal errors were unique among his contemporaries (and ancestors) both inside and outside the RC Church.
Just a question, then. How closely does modern day Lutheranism relate to Martin Luther? I honestly don’t know, and I’m honestly asking. What part of protestantism is considered current theology, has it evolved?
There are MANY general histories that include the Reformation and afterwards. I've found Pelikan's multi-volume _The Christian Tradition_ helpful.
Never mind then.
Since my comments seem to be upsetting the Mod (while Protestant comments do not apparently), I’ll just send my response to you as an email.
That's why I love scripture, it reveals all the faults, failures and inadequacies (which proves men didn't make it up, else they would come across as pure as the driven snow, right?). And in spite of mankind's' imperfections, we have a God that still loves us, redeems us, leads us into righteousness and truth and welcomes us home at the end of our days.
You wrote:
“Were such things ever done at Luther’s bidding? I don’t think so.”
Luther encouaged his newly Protestantized princes to steal Catholic properties. They did so. He himself lived for years in a stolen monastery.
“”Church” authorities were not averse to persecuting or even condemning to death rabbis that were thought to be guilty of blasphemy.”
Uh, actually that’s impossible since Church authorities as such never had any civil authority to condemn people to death. All they could do was turn people over to the secular arm.
“Now, back to the question of the number of bastards fathered by medieval Churchmen before they became Pope...”
Why would that be an issue? Did someone claim they were impeccable?
Oh, goody, I can't wait! Personally though, I didn't much appreciate the dig either. The Mod was doing his/her job.
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.