You disparaged the information I provided, and then turned right around and agreed with it in a backhanded way. Nothing you’ve posted negates my statement, that anti-Semitism didn’t just fall out of the sky when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. He learned it, when he was Catholic.
You imply that those who were anti-Semite were somehow not Catholic; if so, there was an awful lot of “not Catholic” going around, and the “are too Catholics” still killed a bunch of Jews, oftentimes for very spurious reasons or even for financial gain, as even one of your popes pointed out in the information I provided, that you disparage.
I suppose Martin Luther should have stayed in that dirty vessel of a church himself and not attempted to reform some very obvious abuses, leaving the Holy Spirit to inspire someone less tainted with very old church biases. The Catholic Church held no special esteem for Jews, other than that they killed Jesus.
The church was (and is) the new Israel, according to itself. That’s Replacement Theology, the same errant doctrine to which certain addlepated Catholics want to attribute the putative anti-Semitism of, hold onto your tinfoil miter ... Presbyterians, lol. Yes, those Presbyterian passion plays and pogroms and inquisitions are quite well known and just horrid. /s
My point wasn't that antisemitism was absent within all of Europe, protestant and Catholic alike. It was an ugly stain on mankind. My point was that there was noting just, special, or holy about Luther that would justify the claims of divine authority to revise or reject Scripture. He was just another flawed "holy" man who exploited the faithful for self advancement and not much different than an early day Jimmy Swaggart.