A Quick Summary of Exsurge Domine

[guanophore]

Hi Guanophore: I can’t disagree with you there as what you said is true enough. There is the obedience thing which we as Catholic’s are bound to just I think those in other faiths do in their way or manor. I was just thinking that what you posted about knew no guile and did not return insult for insult etc. Something Luther must have missed. He also missed John’s 15;12 This is my commandment: that you should love one another. it seems to me that in many ways Luther was very unchristian towards those who did not agree with him and or opposed him and what he taught. You are correct in that I have long thought that had Luther’s behavior and attitude were replaced by the fruits of the Holy Spirit the outcome would have been much different.

When we look at how different the effects of the Saints were on the Church, and how they led lives we all wish to emulate (unlike Luther, whose expressions and behavior are so scanadalous) we can see the fruits in the centuries that followed. Those who urged reform by their own example of sanctity became a vessel through which the Holy Spirit could work.

I compare Luther’s response to clerical corruption with that of Saint Francis, who did not let personal sins of others interfere with his perception of Christ’s presence in His Church.

 

[spina1953]

When we look at how different the effects of the Saints were on the Church, and how they led lives we all wish to emulate (unlike Luther, whose expressions and behavior are so scanadalous) we can see the fruits in the centuries that followed. Those who urged reform by their own example of sanctity became a vessel through which the Holy Spirit could work.

I compare Luther’s response to clerical corruption with that of Saint Francis, who did not let personal sins of others interfere with his perception of Christ’s presence in His Church.

Hi Guanophore: I agree and you have it correct. Since no one is perfect we look to the saints who in many ways struggled with either their sins or the temptations to sin. There is of course a lesson to learn in how the saints tried to with God’s help and grace to do His will. St. Francis does come to mind as well as other notable saints of that time. Luther sad to say really is not a example of what one live by, though one can certainly learn from his mistakes if ones to and do them or at least act as Luther did.
Even in our day and age we have those who are not setting the example of what it means to be a priest or teaching correctly what the CC teaches.. The CC is always seemingly in reform or needs to be simply because it is a Church run by men who are human so prone to temptation, since its human nature. yet, ever so slowly the CC does find ways to overcome the abuses that take place. we lay people need to do our part in doing what we have been taught and there will always be a Luther in the woodworks. And we can do as the saints did not let personal sins of other interfere with Christ's presence in His Church.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper; It seems to me from reading the history behind Exsurge Domine, that not all of Luther’s writings were known to the committee in council at that time, or were aware of. That being said While Eck was the most knowledgeable of Luther’s writings and teachings and doctrines, was not the best person to head the committee as he was very hard headed person and did his best to swing the committee to his way of thinking which was to outright condemn Luther and have him branded a heretic and burned at the stake.

               Yet, there were those on the committee with cooler heads and thought that if Luther would recant than all would be forgiven and so Luther was given a second chance which Eck did not want. As you may know Luther and Eck hated each other to the core, which accounts for the fact that Eck wanting to be as severe as one could. The problem with Luther was that he was also a very strong willed and strong headed person who was not willing to recant anything which of course let to his excommunication. The document is important in that it pointed out just some of Luther's writings, teachings, and doctrines as either heretical or at best needed further examination before condemning it but were at least suspect in the eyes of the CC.

I agree. After the 7 day Leipzig debate where Eck defeated Luther, Eck did become Luther’s most powerful foe, and was also the best informed on Luther’s writings and positions. But what I think is most interesting is the total number of people that were involved in the formulation of Exsurge Domine. Sometimes it is represented as mostly the efforts of Eck, but that is not at all the case at all.

It is also important to note that nobody here on this thread has suggested that the Church was wrong to excommunicate Luther. Roland Bainton, who typically takes a fairly ‘pro-Luther’ position relates a quote from Luther’s response to “Exsurge Domine”, (“Against the Execrable Bull of Antichrist”)

“Where are you now, most excellent Charles the Emperor, kings, and Christian princes? You were baptize into the name of Christ, and you can suffer these Tarter voices of Antichrist? Where are you bishops? Where doctors? Where are you who confess Christ? **Woe to all who live in these times. ** **The wrath of God is coming upon the papists, the enemies of the cross of Christ, that all men should resist them. You then, Leo X, you cardinals and the rest of you at Rome, I tell you to your faces: “If this bull has come out in your name, then I will use the power which has been given me in baptism whereby I became a son of God and co-heir with Christ, established upon the rock against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. I call upon you to renounce your diabolical blasphemy and audacious impiety, and, if you will not, we shall hold all your seat as possessed and oppressed by Satan, the damned seat of Antichrist, in the name of Jesus Christ, whom you persecute.” **But my zeal carries me away. I am not yet persuaded that the bull is by the pope but rather by that apostle of impiety, John Eck.

Then follows a discussion of the articles. The tract concludes:

**If anyone despise my fraternal warning, I am free from his blood in the last judgment. It is better than I should die than that I should retract one syllable of the condemned articles. ** And as they excommunicated me for the sacrilege of heresy, so I excommunicate them in the name of the sacred truth of God. Christ will judge whose excommunication will stand. Amen.” Bainton, pg. 155

As usual, Luther’s own words are the most revealing of all.

Luther of course was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. The question becomes then: From what did Luther excommunicate his foes, specifically and exactly, and by what authority did he do so.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[guanophore]

It is also important to note that nobody here on this thread has suggested that the Church was wrong to excommunicate Luther. Roland Bainton, who typically takes a fairly ‘pro-Luther’ position relates a quote from Luther’s response to “Exsurge Domine”, (“Against the Execrable Bull of Antichrist”)

Indeed not. But I wonder if what the Church did was just a formality, really. Luther had already excommunicated himself by departing from the Teachings of the Church.

"…we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…

Surely no one expected Luther to comply? So the penalty was “automatic”.

 

[rcwitness]

It is also important to note that nobody here on this thread has suggested that the Church was wrong to excommunicate Luther. Roland Bainton, who typically takes a fairly ‘pro-Luther’ position relates a quote from Luther’s response to “Exsurge Domine”, ("Against the Execrable Bull of

Yes, and that was where I was trying to go with some Lutherans here. I was trying to make a point that they actually are not in the same boat as Luther, and according to their own faith, consider him a heretic. Or at least I was trying to allow them to say one way or another.

If they believe some of the things he taught were heretical, then they believe that the chief reformer of the corrupt church was a heretic. I think some do admitt this, and is why they will also readily admitt that the reformation was not successfull in many ways. I can respect this approach from those Lutherans. They would consider reform was necessary (with behavior AND Teaching) and Martin helped with some things, but reform failled and Martin helped with that too. Catholics would consider reform was necessary (with behavior) and Martin brought attention to that (so helped) and the reformation was succesfull (but took many years) but unfortunately Martin chose ex communication instead of possibly being a great Saint of reform, like St Francis.

 

[KathleenGee]

This is the letter St. Francis wrote to all Catholics in 1221. It is very sobering and takes our fascination away from things to the reality of God’s presence before us at all times. He wrote it for all the Catholics in the world.

This letter here is condensed. It was the source used to found the original secular order Franciscans, the Brothers and Sisters of Penance. The original one gives a story about a man who lived for riches and was describing the scene prior to his passing on to eternal life.

www.ewtn.com/library/mary/franlet.htm

I took excerpts from it and passed it on to our local diocesan newspaper which they printed.

On the side, I remember reading John Paul’s exhortation to stop terrorism: pray the rosary and do penance…

The solution to alot of the world’s problems is for Catholics to be more Catholic as St. Francis exhorted then, coming from his experience of recuperating from a terrible illness. In 1221, Lutherans then were still Catholics so this sharing of the link is for Lutherans and all Christians today.

Christians so easily fall away from Christ by becoming attracted to alot of passing things in this world, become attached to them instead of Christ, and thus loose the salt of faith.

Luther was very drawn to a life of penance in the monastery he chose to enter. It was very strict. But it did not bear the fruit Francis wished for us.

 

[Topper17]

Hi guano,

Thanks for your response.

Indeed not. But I wonder if what the Church did was just a formality, really. Luther had already excommunicated himself by departing from the Teachings of the Church.

"…we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…

Surely no one expected Luther to comply? So the penalty was “automatic”.

I think you are right here. From everything I have read, if Luther wasn’t totally committed to rebelling against the Church before ‘Exsurge Domine’, he certainly was after. What is interesting is the commitment to this defiance. Lutheran Professor E. G. Schweibert, in his outstanding tome of a biography, does an excellent job on the ‘Exsurge Domine’ period.

**“As has been noted in a previous connection, the proclaimation of the bull ‘Exsurge Domine’ was not unexpected in Germany. Early as March (1520), Luther had heard rumors of the drafting of the document………**Hutten was very much impressed with Luther’s bold defiance of all Roman threats and hailed him as a potential leader in liberating German from the Roman menace. **As has been mentioned, he thought chiefly about the political and economic implications of Luther’s work and had neither the inclination nor the training to understand the basic theological issues at stake in the struggle with Rome. **Luther gently refused Hutten’s proposal on the ground that the Gospel must not be furthered by use of force. He preferred to trust wholly in God, realizing that God works out the destiny of mankind though human instruments. His position was stated in a letter to Spalatin, July 17th, 1520:

‘Remember that it behoves (sic) us to suffer for the Word of God. For now that Silvester von Shaaumburg and Franz von Sickingen have made me secure from the fear of man,** the fury of demons must needs break forth. It shall be a struggle to the finish with this diabolic power. Such is the will of God.’ ** Schweibert, pg. 487

It should be noted that this letter to Spalatin is dated only a day after Eck started north to serve the bull in Germany. This means that Luther was committed to ‘a struggle to the finish with this diabolic power’, even before he was aware of the existence of the actual bull.

“As far as Luther was concerned, the die was cast; and he chafed under further restraint and uncertainty. He stated his position clearly in the following:

‘But for my part the die has now been cast……I hold in contempt alike the fury and favor of Rome. ** I will not be reconciled with them. I will never more hold communion with them. Let then condemn and burn my books. I will return the compliment and wherever I can get fire, I will condemn and burn the whole papal law, that brood of heresies, and will make an end of the humility so long and vainly exhibited by me, and no longer puff up with this profession of obedience to the enemies of the Gospel.’**, Luther

There was no room for doubt as to Luther’s future action regardless of what course the Elector followed in further dealings with Rome. Should the Elector chose to abandon Luther, Schaumburg and Sickingen would offer him protection. The letters (Luther’s) also carried a warning to Rome. The new Gospel movement had been so warmly embraced in Germany that any application of force would convert Germany into a second Bohemia.” Schweibert, pg. 488

Your comment about Luther’s being excommunicated being ‘automatic’ is extremely accurate. It didn’t have to be ‘automatic’ since Luther could have recanted. But given the well documented fact that even before he was aware of the existence of the actual bull, he had absolutely no intention of backing down in any respect. And yes, I agree that, as you put it: he “excommunicated himself by departing from the Teachings of the Church”. In the proceedings against him, the Church was simply formally acknowledging what Luther had gone to such great lengths to make perfectly clear.

 

[Topper17]

Hi rc,

Thanks for your response.

Yes, and that was where I was trying to go with some Lutherans here. I was trying to make a point that they actually are not in the same boat as Luther, and according to their own faith, consider him a heretic. Or at least I was trying to allow them to say one way or another.

I agree. Did you ever get a response on this very important point?

If they believe some of the things he taught were heretical, then they believe that the chief reformer of the corrupt church was a heretic. I think some do admit this, and is why they will also readily admitt that the reformation was not successfull in many ways. I can respect this approach from those Lutherans. They would consider reform was necessary (with behavior AND Teaching) and Martin helped with some things, but reform failled and Martin helped with that too. Catholics would consider reform was necessary (with behavior) and Martin brought attention to that (so helped) and the reformation was succesfull (but took many years) but unfortunately Martin chose ex communication instead of possibly being a great Saint of reform, like St Francis.

That is exactly the point. The Church is always in need of ‘Reformation’, but it must be done from within the Church.

God Bless You rc, Topper

 

[aragonjohn1]

On a now closed thread 7 Sorrows asked for a quick summary of the Papal Bull Exsurge Domine.

On June 15, 1520, Pope Leo issued the Bull Exsurge Domine, which condemned forty-one of Luther’s propositions. Unfortunately, this document was not well drafted. In censuring Luther’s statements, the Bull did not distinguish between heretical statements and those which were merely misleading. Even scholars could not understand why some of the statements had been included in the censure.

However, until the Council of Trent (1545-1547, 1551-1552, 1562-1563), Exsurge Domine was the only papal document concerning Lutheran teachings. The Bull did not excommunicate Luther, but rather gave him sixty days to recant. John Eck was asked to publicize the Bull in Germany, but had difficulty because of Luther’s popularity and the animosity towards Rome. At the urging of an advisor, Luther addressed the Pope in a letter in October 1520.

In this document, Luther tries to draw a distinction between Pope Leo and the Vatican bureaucracy. Still, there is an absolute refusal to recant or change his opinions. At the same time, Luther was authoring works vilifying the Bull Exsurge Domine and calling the Pope the Antichrist for issuing it. Luther argues that the Bull should be withdrawn, and if not withdrawn, then no Christian should heed Rome, the enemy of God!

With Luther’s refusal to recant, the Pope issued another document Decet Romanum Pontificem, on January 3, 1521, which excommunicated Luther.

ooh, thanks very, quite.

 

[spina1953]

HI Topper: In reply to your post I see that in Exsurge Domine after the 41 points that were called into question this in reference to Luther’s doctrines :“We have therefore held a careful inquiry, scrutiny, discussion, strict examination, and mature deliberation with each of the brothers, the eminent cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, as well as the priors and ministers general of the religious orders, beside many other professionals and masters skilled in sacred theology and in civil and canon law, We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, ( the 41 errors) and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the true interpretation of sacred Scripture received from the Church.”

               While only 41 errors were addressed at that time taken from some of Luther's writings as well as from the 95 Thesis on indulgences, it seems that from the document that did not examine all of Luther's writings up to that time. However, it states that they did at least carefully examined what they have of Luther's writings and they found that these 41 propositions were in error and not to be taught.

As a mater of course, at first Luther did not believe that the papal Bull was from the Pope but rather from Eck a sworn enemy of Luther and his doctrines. However, after realizing that the Bull was indeed from the Pope, it seemed have enraged Luther in that he rushed off to have a pamphlet printed An Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly Condemned by the Papal Bull in which he used the most vile language against the Pope and the bull he received. Moreover, it appears that Luther was already or had already decided that the CC was in some way evil especially the Pope calling him the Antichrist.

 What it seems to me that, because the CC did not accept his doctrines and teachings, that Luther not only turned his back on the CC but developed a real and lasting hatred towards the CC and the Pope. Luther was so convinced that his doctrines and teachings were correct, that he was not going to allow anyone to disagree without incurring his eternal wrath and hatred.  Luther from those writings against the CC and the Pope is like the spoiled child who does not get his way and throws a tantrum  in order to get his way. Exsurge Domine sheds some light into medieval thinking from the religious point of what the CC authority to excommunicate those unwilling to conform to what the CC teaches. In a sense Exsurge Domine is a religious legal document issued by the CC under the authority of the Pope. It points to what is questioned and deemed not in line with CC teaching and exorting one to cease and detest from further teaching of those things contrary to what the CC teaches under pain of being excommunicated.

  It is rather sad in the end that Luther refused to really listen and to explain what his teachings and doctrines were and how they were to be understood. Luther refused to explain unless it was done his way and only arguments could be done by Scripture only. Luther would not have it any other way, but his own way or no way at all. Much of Luther's wrings reflect rage in explaining his teachings being done for propaganda purposes by use of the printing press in order to get his personal point known. Had Luther taken a different course thinks might have turned out different than what did transpire.

 

[Topper17]

HI Topper: In reply to your post I see that in Exsurge Domine after the 41 points that were called into question this in reference to Luther’s doctrines :“We have therefore held a careful inquiry, scrutiny, discussion, strict examination, and mature deliberation with each of the brothers, the eminent cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, as well as the priors and ministers general of the religious orders, beside many other professionals and masters skilled in sacred theology and in civil and canon law, We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, ( the 41 errors) and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the true interpretation of sacred Scripture received from the Church.”

               While only 41 errors were addressed at that time taken from some of Luther's writings as well as from the 95 Thesis on indulgences, it seems that from the document that did not examine all of Luther's writings up to that time. However, it states that they did at least carefully examined what they have of Luther's writings and they found that these 41 propositions were in error and not to be taught.

As a mater of course, at first Luther did not believe that the papal Bull was from the Pope but rather from Eck a sworn enemy of Luther and his doctrines. However, after realizing that the Bull was indeed from the Pope, it seemed have enraged Luther in that he rushed off to have a pamphlet printed An Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly Condemned by the Papal Bull in which he used the most vile language against the Pope and the bull he received. Moreover, it appears that Luther was already or had already decided that the CC was in some way evil especially the Pope calling him the Antichrist.

 What it seems to me that, because the CC did not accept his doctrines and teachings, that Luther not only turned his back on the CC but developed a real and lasting hatred towards the CC and the Pope. Luther was so convinced that his doctrines and teachings were correct, that he was not going to allow anyone to disagree without incurring his eternal wrath and hatred.  Luther from those writings against the CC and the Pope is like the spoiled child who does not get his way and throws a tantrum  in order to get his way. Exsurge Domine sheds some light into medieval thinking from the religious point of what the CC authority to excommunicate those unwilling to conform to what the CC teaches. In a sense Exsurge Domine is a religious legal document issued by the CC under the authority of the Pope. It points to what is questioned and deemed not in line with CC teaching and exorting one to cease and detest from further teaching of those things contrary to what the CC teaches under pain of being excommunicated.

  It is rather sad in the end that Luther refused to really listen and to explain what his teachings and doctrines were and how they were to be understood. Luther refused to explain unless it was done his way and only arguments could be done by Scripture only. Luther would not have it any other way, but his own way or no way at all. Much of Luther's wrings reflect rage in explaining his teachings being done for propaganda purposes by use of the printing press in order to get his personal point known. Had Luther taken a different course thinks might have turned out different than what did transpire.

 

[Topper17]

HI Topper:
As a mater of course, at first Luther did not believe that the papal Bull was from the Pope but rather from Eck a sworn enemy of Luther and his doctrines. However, after realizing that the Bull was indeed from the Pope, it seemed have enraged Luther in that he rushed off to have a pamphlet printed An Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly Condemned by the Papal Bull in which he used the most vile language against the Pope and the bull he received. Moreover, it appears that Luther was already or had already decided that the CC was in some way evil especially the Pope calling him the Antichrist.

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response. You mention that “at first Luther did not believe that the papal Bull was from the Pope”. That is true but it is not the whole truth, which is always a little ‘stickier’.

In regards to the publication of “Exsurge Domine”:

**“Luther, on the other hand, treated the whole proceeding with contempt. He had decided to fight. Two tracts came from his pen in October: the one ‘Eck’s New Bulls’ and Lies; the other, ‘Against the Execrable Bull of the Antichrist’. The language in these was most violent. He pretended that the document which Eck was promulgating was not genuine, even though he admitted in a letter to Spalatin that it was authentic. **He stated that his appeal to a general council and his hearing before the Archbishop of Trier were still pending and that under such circumstances the Pope would not send Eck on such a mission.” Schweibert, pg. 489

In other words, at one point, Luther knew that the bull was genuine, but intentionally misrepresented his understanding of it. This deliberate attempt to mislead the public is ironic when viewed in the light of what he called Eck’s “Lies”, which were in fact, not lies. Thankfully, it is a Lutheran biographer who brings this to light.

**“In the second treatise he censured Leo X if he had permitted his bull to go out under his name. There followed some rather strong, direct language with reference to the seat of the Antichrist”

‘Unless you do this, know that I, with all who worship Christ, will esteem your seat possessed and oppressed by Satan, the damned seat of Antichrist, to which we will not render obedience or be subject, or be united, but will detest and execrate as the chief and supreme enemy of Christ. We are prepared in behalf of this conviction not only to bear your censures, but even to ask that you may never absolve us and may fulfill your cruel tyranny. For the sake of this conviction we offer ourselves to death and by these writings we proclaim that, if you persist in our fury,** we condemn and deliver you, along with your Bull, and all your Satanic decretals to the destruction of the flesh in order that your spirit may to the destruction of the flesh in order that your spirit may be delivered with us in the day of the Lord.’**** Luther

Luther apparently was reluctant still to admit that the Pope had actually taken such a step. He still hoped that the Pope and the Roman Church might somehow find another solution. On November 17, 1520, he once more appealed to a general council, calling upon the secular authorities named in his former ‘Address” to force the calling of a council.” Schweibert, pg. 489-90
In regards to the Luther’s burning of Exsurge Domine and the Canon Law, Schweibert continues:

On December 10th, 1520, “Philip Melanchthon nailed a significant document on the ‘Schwarze Brett”, the university bulletin board, announcing the long-awaited reaction on the part of Luther to the burning of his books all over Germany**……After the gathering had assembled, one of the masters, probably Agricola, stated the fire……But the principal collection of writings which Luther wanted to destroy was the corpus canonici, that body of Canon Law which gave the Pope all the extravagant powers which Eck, Emser, and others tried to defend. ** One after one the other various tomes were consigned to the flames. Finally, Luther unexpectedly drew a printed copy of the bull copy of the bull “Exsurge Domine” from his gown and threw it into the flames………**Luther, therefore, on this occasion impulsively burned the papal bull which threatened him with excommunication, but he intentionally destroyed the whole basic framework upon which the Roman Church had been built. ………The next day Luther began his lectures to his students with an explanation of the necessity for eradicating all traces of homage to the Papacy from their hearts if they were to be saved. Luther meant that he ‘New Theology’ required a complete rejection of the Canon Law and the whole outward Roman system.” **(Lutheran) Schwiebert, pg. 490-1

Again, it should be noted that not one person on this thread has suggested that Luther should not have been excommunicated. Sometimes you do see this opinion advanced, but apparently not after the actual facts have come out. That Luther wanted, according to a Lutheran biographer, to ‘intentionally destroy the whole basic framework upon which the Roman Church had been built” suggests that the Catholic Church was, if anything, too lenient with Luther and that it waited too long to finally excommunicate him.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[guanophore]

In regards to the publication of “Exsurge Domine”:
He stated that his appeal to a general council and his hearing before the Archbishop of Trier were still pending and that under such circumstances the Pope would not send Eck on such a mission.” Schweibert, pg. 489

Both things were likely true. The Bull only directed Luther to reject his writings and repent, and constrained him from teaching and preaching in the name of the Church (a move long overdue).

If he had obeyed the instruction, the councils and the hearings may have resolved matters further.

He still hoped that the Pope and the Roman Church might somehow find another solution. On November 17, 1520, he once more appealed to a general council, calling upon the secular authorities named in his former ‘Address” to force the calling of a council.” Schweibert, pg. 489-90

As indeed it sounded like Rome wanted another solution.

In regards to the Luther’s burning of Exsurge Domine and the Canon Law, Schweibert continues:

On December 10th, 1520, “Philip Melanchthon nailed a significant document on the ‘Schwarze Brett”, the university bulletin board, announcing the long-awaited reaction on the part of Luther to the burning of his books all over Germany**……After the gathering had assembled, one of the masters, probably Agricola, stated the fire……But the principal collection of writings which Luther wanted to destroy was the corpus canonici, that body of Canon Law which gave the Pope all the extravagant powers which Eck, Emser, and others tried to defend. ** One after one the other various tomes were consigned to the flames. Finally, Luther unexpectedly drew a printed copy of the bull copy of the bull “Exsurge Domine” from his gown and threw it into the flames………Luther, therefore, on this occasion impulsively burned the papal bull which threatened him with excommunication, but he intentionally destroyed the whole basic framework upon which the Roman Church had been built. ………The next day Luther began his lectures to his students with an explanation of the necessity for eradicating all traces of homage to the Papacy from their hearts if they were to be saved. Luther meant that he ‘New Theology’ required a complete rejection of the Canon Law and the whole outward Roman system.” (Lutheran) Schwiebert, pg. 490-1

I think this might be an error on the part of your Lutheran scholar, Topper. The fact is that the Church is not built upon canon law, which is man made, and mutable. The Church is built upon the Christ as cornerstone, and the Apostles and prophets grafted into Him as foundation.

While I don’t doubt that Luther lost sight of this foundation (he believed the Church fell off of it), and may have believed that the canon law was all that was left, this was never the case.

The other writings of Luther were more accurate, in that he attacked the Eucharist, which he knew to be the Source and Summit of the faith.

Sometimes you do see this opinion advanced, but apparently not after the actual facts have come out.

Perhaps. But it is more likely that members of the forum have learned that charitable dialogue with you is not possible, so when you start posting, they just drop out of the discussion.

That Luther wanted, according to a Lutheran biographer, to ‘intentionally destroy the whole basic framework upon which the Roman Church had been built” suggests that the Catholic Church was, if anything, too lenient with Luther and that it waited too long to finally excommunicate him.

I suggest that Exsurge Domine was not a document of excommunication, but of warning and instruction. Luther excommunicated himself by not obeying.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Topper: In response to your recent post, I think it germane to understand the behind the scenes of how the papal Bull came about. Beginning in Jan. 1520, a papal consistory was summoned to examine Luther’s writings. The committee thought a more through consideration was warranted. The committee thought that only a few of Luther’s teachings could be deemed heretical or erroneous from the Catholic standpoint. Other teachings of Luther seemed problematic and only warranted a lessor degree of censure.

                  In comes Eck and becomes involved in the committee. He had personally confronted Luther the year before in the Leipzig Disputation and had copies of letters from the universities of Cologne and Leuven condemning Luther's teachings. Eck joined the committee when it was halfway through its deliberations and began exerting his considerable influence on the committee to bring it to his way of harsh thinking.

                  Cajetan as well as others on the committee wanted to take a more calmer approach and examine all of Luther's writings; at least those that had been written up to 1520, its context of the whole and then specify carefully distinctions among the various degrees of censure to be applied to Luther's teachings. Eck's approach was very much different. he managed to bulldoze a final decision through the committee to ensure a speedy publication. This resulted in a list of various statements or propositions by Luther perceived to be problematic . There was no attempt to make it or provide any specific response to Luther's theology, or any clarification of what degree of theological censure should be applied with each proposition issued.

                  Eck employed this tactic in order to associate more strong the taint of error and heresy of all of Luther's censured teachings. Both Eck and Luther hated each other and it have been better all around if someone other than Eck had  both not chaired the committee when it was nearly done and use all the influence he had to sway the committee into a hastily decision without complete examination of all of the writings up to that time, and also deliver it to Luther. Eck did not allow the committee sufficient time to examine the core issues in Luther's teachings. Eck seems to have been a hurry to condemn Luther's writings and did all he could to sway the committee to support his conclusions. It does seem that had Cajetan and others with calmer minds been able to examine all of the writings of Luther up to that point in time and had been able to provide specific responses to Luther's propositions based on Scripture and Catholic tradition instead of allowing Eck to hijack the committee into a poorly worded context with the intent of provoking offense which Eck intended it to be.

                With careful reading of Exsurge Domine, one can see the hand of Eck in it. There is no question Eck was out to get Luther by any means possible; it was more vendetta than trying to get Luther to recant his teachings. The papal Bull in some ways tried to soften the blow of Eck's wording, but in the end it did nothing more than push Luther further away from the CC.

 

[Topper17]

Hi guano,

Thanks for your response. As you know I posted the following quote from Lutheran Professor Schweibert:

In regards to the Luther’s burning of Exsurge Domine and the Canon Law, Schweibert continues:

On December 10th, 1520, “Philip Melanchthon nailed a significant document on the ‘Schwarze Brett”, the university bulletin board, announcing the long-awaited reaction on the part of Luther to the burning of his books all over Germany**……After the gathering had assembled, one of the masters, probably Agricola, stated the fire……But the principal collection of writings which Luther wanted to destroy was the corpus canonici, that body of Canon Law which gave the Pope all the extravagant powers which Eck, Emser, and others tried to defend. ** One after one the other various tomes were consigned to the flames. Finally, Luther unexpectedly drew a printed copy of the bull copy of the bull “Exsurge Domine” from his gown and threw it into the flames………Luther, therefore, on this occasion impulsively burned the papal bull which threatened him with excommunication, but he intentionally destroyed the whole basic framework upon which the Roman Church had been built. ………The next day Luther began his lectures to his students with an explanation of the necessity for eradicating all traces of homage to the Papacy from their hearts if they were to be saved. Luther meant that his ‘New Theology’ required a complete rejection of the Canon Law and the whole outward Roman system.” (Lutheran) Schwiebert, pg. 490-1

Your comment on this quote was as follows:

I think this might be an error on the part of your Lutheran scholar, Topper. The fact is that the Church is not built upon canon law, which is man made, and mutable. The Church is built upon the Christ as cornerstone, and the Apostles and prophets grafted into Him as foundation. .

I do not understand this comment and think that possibly you have misunderstood Schweibert. Have you read his tome of a biography on Luther? I ask because I have never seen anyone familiar with Schweibert suggest that he was so poorly informed as to believe that he believed that the Church does not have Christ as cornerstone………

The point being made was that Luther’s intent was to “intentionally destroy the whole basic framework upon which the Roman Church had been built”. On the following day he explained to his students that his ‘New Theology’ ‘required a complete rejection of the Canon Law and the whole outward Roman system.” In my mind that is the issue, not Schweibert. History shows that Luther wanted to tear the Church down and he was extremely open about it.

Another Lutheran Scholar comments on exactly the same issue. In regards to his burning of the bull ‘Exsurge Domine’ and the Canon Law:
**
** “Perhaps only a few bystanders knew what Luther himself had burned. In fact, much more significant than burning the bull was the burning of the canon law, for this act called into question the entire ecclesiastical legal system which at base made possible the condemnation threatening the bullLuther himself referred to the significance of the event during to the students his lecture on 11 December [the next day] in a speech which, by the way of exception, he delivered in German. He admonished them to guard against the papal statutes. The burning on the previous day he regarded as something trifling. Really, it was the papal see which should be burned. With great seriousness he informed his hearers: if you do not turn away from the dominion of the pope, you cannot be saved,** so much did the pope’s doctrine differ from that of the kingdom of Christ. One should take care not to deny Christ by agreeing with the papists. ** Luther made it clear to the students as future officeholders in the church that either they would place their eternal life in jeopardy by failing to oppose error, or they would have to risk their life on earth. ** Luther himself would rather risk his earthly existence than take upon his conscience the responsibility of being silent before God. **The situation was child’s play no longer. It demanded a decision.” **Another Lutheran Scholar, Martin Brecht, Volume 1, pg. 424-5

Not surprisingly, we find Lutheran Professors Schweibert and Brecht in agreement.

Here we see Luther lobbying for support, the very support that would be his protection against the forces of the Church and empire. Luther’s intent was to cause people to believe that the Church didn’t have the authority to excommunicate him. Rather, he wanted people to fear that by staying aligned with Rome, they were risking their everlasting salvation.

What would we think of a monk, priest, PhD and university Professor, who today was teaching this kind of thing about the Catholic Church?

I suggest that Exsurge Domine was not a document of excommunication, but of warning and instruction. Luther excommunicated himself by not obeying.

It seems that the only one questioning this is you. Nobody else on this thread has suggested that Exsurge Domine was anything but a warning and instruction. I agree though, Luther did excommunicate himself.

What the quotes from these two Lutheran Scholars show is exactly how rebellious and extreme Luther’s positions at the time really were. One has to wonder as to why he thought that his statements had to be THAT extreme. Couldn’t he have simply bowed out of the Church a little more gracefully? Why all of the over the top rhetoric?**

 

[rcwitness]

:What the quotes from these two Lutheran Scholars show is exactly how rebellious and extreme Luther’s positions at the time really were. One has to wonder as to why he thought that his statements had to be THAT extreme. Couldn’t he have simply bowed out of the Church a little more gracefully? Why all of the over the top rhetoric?

I believe these times were very challenging. This was greatly due to many leaders in the Church abusing their position. What Luther believed, as a result, was that this took away their Apostolic authority. And vice versa, he believed that because (according to him) he upheld true Apostolic Teaching, he was able to reject their authority.

The problem with this belief system, is that it results in the very thing that happened… further and continuous division. And more importantly, it was not was Christ commanded us to do. Whoever is greatest among us, will be a servant to all. The servant whom serves all, will do so in humble suffering. We recognize the Saints as those who suffered against sin while obeying the authority of those in leadership positions. The Apostles themselves were able to reject the high Priests when they were commanded by them to stop preaching the name of Jesus. This was because they were commanded to do so by Jesus Himself. And the result of them folowing Jesus was persecution. They did this in a manner of good conduct, because the Holy Spirit was with them.

 

[KathleenGee]

Jesus had 12 apostles, not one single man 1500 years later to radically altar Christianity and to leave it with no Church but individual preference.

 

[Topper17]

Hi rc,

Thanks for your response.

I believe these times were very challenging. This was greatly due to many leaders in the Church abusing their position. What Luther believed, as a result, was that this took away their Apostolic authority. And vice versa, he believed that because (according to him) he upheld true Apostolic Teaching, he was able to reject their authority.

The problem with this belief system, is that it results in the very thing that happened… further and continuous division. And more importantly, it was not was Christ commanded us to do.

Precisely!

As I know you agree, if what Luther had been teaching had actually been the ‘true Apostolic Teaching’ his followers would not be so doctrinally fractured today. In regards to the disagreement of belief which is so representative of Protestantism:

"In a little more than a decade after Luther wrote the "Freedom of a Christian [1520], Thomas More described the disagreement of those he called ‘heretics’ with one another and compared their disunity with the grand unity of the Catholic Church:

*'But now these heretics be almost as many sects as men, and never one agreeth with another, so that if the world were to learn the right way of them, that matter were much like as if a man walking in a wilderness that fain would find the right way toward town that he intended, should meet with a crowd of lewd, mocking knaves, which then the poor man had prayed them to tell him the way, would get them into a roundel (circle) turning them back to back, and then speak all at once, and each of them tell him, ‘this way,’, each of them pointing forth with his had the way that his faith standeth." * Marius, pg. 270-271, quoting More’s “The Confession of Tyndale’s Answer”.

As we know, Luther had been warned of this certain outcome. He had not heeded the warning to return to the fold in Exsurge Domine. He wrote ‘Freedom of a Christian’ after he had seen Exsurge Domine. It was preceded by an open letter to Pope Leo. Richard Marius comments on this Open Letter to Pope Leo:

“He never had much talent for apology. Now he addressed Leo in the firm tones of a good German schoolmaster admonishing an inept but well-meaning child. Although he had not attacked Leo personally, he nevertheless declared unremitting war against the papacy itself, he said. Leo was counseled to give up his “glory” – that is, the title of pope – to retire to the parish and live on the income of a simple priest. Then Leo could help Luther reform the Church, In effect, Luther said peace could reign between them if Leo helped destroy the papacy. The letter looks like a calculated insult, couched in a vocabulary of meekness and friendship but aimed at showing friends as well as enemies – the elector and Spalatin as well as Militz and the pope –** that no compromise was possible between true Christians and the Antichrist at Rome**.” Marius, pg. 266

The Open Letter itself can be found in LW, Vol. 31, pgs. 34-343. Interestingly, we learn from the LW editors that the Open Letter to “Leo X was published separately in Wittenberg before November 4, 1520,”** But the editors of LW also state that this letter to Leo was arranged at an October 12th meeting with Militz. “There Luther agreed to write a conciliatory letter and a devotional bookled to accompany and it, and even to date the letter Sept 6th to indicate that he was not motivated by the publication in Germany of the Exsurge Domine.” ** LW editors, Vol. 31, pg. 300.

The ‘conciliatory letter’ to Leo recommended that he give up the title of Pope, and that peace could reign if Leo helped destroy the papacy and help Luther reform the Church.

If there had been even any remote possibility of Luther being willing to compromise with the Church, Exsurge Domine put an end to it.

God Bless You rc, Topper

 

[Tomster]

Jesus had 12 apostles, not one single man 1500 years later to radically altar Christianity and to leave it with no Church but individual preference.

That’s about the size of it!

 

[spina1953]

HI Topper: I agree with your statement on Luther. It appears that the conciliatory letter to Pope Leo X really was more a veiled reprimand than conciliatory . It almost seems to me Luther thought Pope Leo X was just going to agree with Luther and go along with all that Luther said. When that did not happen Luther then turned around and began a campaign of hate against the Papacy and the CC. The vile language he used and the total disrespect he had for the CC and the Pope shows up very well in Luther’s writings.
This also show in how he dealt with those who also broke away from the Church; Calvin and Zwingli as well as the Anti-Baptists who opposed his teachings and decided on their own interpretations of Scripture. Luther spared no one who opposed his teachings and doctrines or did not accept them in total. Luther considered his doctorate in theology to be far superior to every theologian in Europe, even though most theologians had a far better education than Luther. Luther also considered doctorate gave him the authority to teach and make new doctrines based on his interpretations of Scripture and that his interpretations were correct and all others were not. This can be seen in Luther's writings where he says that his interpretations are not to be questioned by anyone. So, in the end the CC really had no choice but to excommunicated Luther if he was unwilling to recant. While Exsurge Domine may not be the best document written it did point out something of Luther's thinking and teachings that really did need to be addressed.