A Quick Summary of Exsurge Domine

[guanophore]

I agree completely, I really do.

But the attitude seems to be contradictory, when the actions taken against some of the accusations (and not in just in a dialogue fellowship manner, mind you. But with an arrogant attitude of complete confidence and self righteousness) leveled by Martin Luther against the Church (Universal) are criticized as being motivated out of contempt.

Well one must admit, there s a great deal of it that is contemptible.

I think that it should be fairly recognized as to what modern Luthernism rejects within these 41 bold and unrelenting teachings by the chief reformer.

Frankly I was hoping for some discussion about this myself, which is why I got on the thread, but I ha]/quoteve not seen much of it.

These divided groups within Luthernism should come together and resolve their own differences before accusing the Church Universal of not handling the reformers as they ought to have.

It is very interesting to see this, because it is exactly what the EO say about the Roman Communion. Correct and reabsorb the plethora of stepchildren that have split from you, then we can discuss unity. But, despite the constant efforts of the Church in this regard since Vatican II this is a very long and slow process. Why is that? It is so because we don’t have any control over the beliefs of others, and there are many that are not willing or interested in changing their minds about doctrine.

The Lutherans on CAF who are faithful to their confessions can do very little, just as ourselves, to have any meaningful impact on those who abandon the basic tenents of the faith. We can all work with those persons who are ready, willing, and able to reconcile differences and thus work toward unity. This is why it is so grievous that Lutherans here on CAF are continually disparaged and criticized about their faith. It is unlikely that one could find any Lutherans more motivated toward unity than those here at CAF. If we cannot affirm one another’s faith here, where everyone has chosen to come for dialogue, what better place is there?

Isn't it like a son upset with his mother's rules which he won't accept and expecting her to mend their relationship, while his own children are not accepting his own rules and he is not able to manage his relationship with them?

Very much so, which is why we must also attend to the log that is in our own eye with the schism in the East.

Also, how can we possibly discuss the reformation and its documents which are directly related to Martin Luther and his accusations and teachings without recognizing his heresies and false accusations.

Then let us focus on the heresies and false accusations, rather than modern Lutherans, who have had no participation in the formation of them, and should not be expected to defend themselves regarding them - most especially those that did not later become part of the Lutheran Confessions.

 

[guanophore]

I have NOT stated that Luther’s attitude and arrogance had anything to do with why the Church ex communicated him and rejected SOME of his teachings and accusations. But that it probably had alot to do with the manner in which the pope resonded-NOT the content. In th end, we believe that it was NOT Martin’s Catholic faith which compelled him to teach everything he was teaching, but his own interpretations. He was given orders to stop teaching these things which the Church officially opposed. It was not faith in Jesus which compelled him to respond with refusing and calling the pope an antichrist.

To be fair, it was not limited at all. He was ordered to stop teaching and preaching, period. This is not an uncommon Church discipline that has been applied to many Saints.

And we are not in a position to determine what it was that compelled him to respond as he did. We can only speculate, which the Moderator has asked us to refrain from doing.

I have tried to ask for any Lutheran here to share with us why you, as a Lutheran, believe Martin Luther was ex communicated.

That would be considered off topic in this thread. Lutheran opinion is not responsible for the contents of Exsurge Domine, the Pope is (or was) and the CC.

This is important because you accuse the Church for not dealing with him in a manner which would have maybe avoided division. But division continued within the reformer's communions consistantly ever since Luther and even within the Lutheran faith

This is also a diversion from the thread topic. What we need to do here, unless we want the thread closed, is to focuse on the topic.

For the Catholic… It was because he was changing the Apostolic Teachings. This means he was attacking the Eucharist. When someone attacks the Eucharist, they end up dividing, and those who don’t remain with His Eucharist will continue to divide.

To the extent that this concept is included in the thread topic, I would be very interested in discussing it.

There will always be personal faults and shortcomings with individual Catholics and non Catholics. That’s why we don’t split from the Eucharist over personal interpretations.

Again, to be fair, Catholics do this on a regular basis. The vast majority of US “Catholics” don’t even go to Mass on Sunday, and they reject 3-5 of the major doctrines of the Church. They are Protestant and don’t even know it! They do things to excommunicate themselves on a daily basis, splitting themselves from the Eucharist.

When we point fingers at Lutherans, the other three are pointing back at ourselves.

 

[guanophore]

Spina1953 brought these two specific teachings of Martin to attention.

31)In every good work the just man sins and

1. A good work done very well is a venial sin.

Would you as a Lutheran believe these? And if your Church said to someone in your Sunday school class who was teaching them, “please stop teaching these things” but they said, “no” what would you do?

Warning to my Lutheran Brethren

As much as I personally am very interested in the answer to this question it is OFF TOPIC and I don’t think we should go there (unless you want the thread closed )

 

[spina1953]

Warning to my Lutheran Brethren

As much as I personally am very interested in the answer to this question it is OFF TOPIC and I don’t think we should go there (unless you want the thread closed )

Hi Guanophore: These two examples from Exsurge Domine are just that examples and were not meant to be questions to be answered separate from Exsurge Domine.

 

[rcwitness]

To be fair, it was not limited at all. He was ordered to stop teaching and preaching, period. This is not an uncommon Church discipline that has been applied to many Saints.

I do see what you are saying. The Bull did not Confirm which teachings were specifically against Catholic faith. But he replied with refusal and more accusation, right?

And we are not in a position to determine what it was that compelled him to respond as he did. We can only speculate, which the Moderator has asked us to refrain from doing.

Fair enough.

That would be considered off topic in this thread. Lutheran opinion is not responsible for the contents of Exsurge Domine, the Pope is (or was) and the CC.

Again, point taken. I really just want to know if from a Lutheran point of view, why the Church excommunicated him because I’m curious if they would have accepted him teaching these things,or disciplined him in some sort of way also.

This is also a diversion from the thread topic. What we need to do here, unless we want the thread closed, is to focuse on the topic.

Got it.

Again, to be fair, Catholics do this on a regular basis. The vast majority of US “Catholics” don’t even go to Mass on Sunday, and they reject 3-5 of the major doctrines of the Church. They are Protestant and don’t even know it! They do things to excommunicate themselves on a daily basis, splitting themselves from the Eucharist.

Just because there are Catholics who don’t uphold all the teachings of the Church, doesn’t mean they have confronted the Church leaders about it, and after being told their teaching and understanding is not in accordance with the Deposit of Faith, reject that admonishion, continue to teach… then receive the highest discipline in the Church, yet go on to administer a communion Eucharist in opposition to that of the authority of the magisterium.

But I agree 100% that these cafeteria catholics are much more destructive than a genuine Lutheran who doesn’t pretend to be something he’s not, and accepts only what he is able to deffend. The Catholic Church attracts many types of Christians. I think more than other communions, we have pickers and choosers. Or maybe other communions allow for more variations of belief.

When we point fingers at Lutherans, the other three are pointing back at ourselves.

 

[spina1953]

It seems to me that Exsurge Domine was about refuting Luther’s doctrines and teachings and pointing out where he went wrong as far as the CC was concerned. At the time Luther was still a catholic and so subject to the teachings and authority of the CC. The Papal Bull wanted Luther to recant these things that the Bull pointed out. Luther was not willing to do so. it is my understanding that Luther at first thought that it was a forgery by those against him, but when he accepted it as real, he went off and wrote Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly Condemned in the Papal Bull attacking the Pope etc. as his response to the Papal Bull.

Luther knew what the CC was going to say and do if he refused to recant his doctrines and teachings. I wonder if Luther really thought that the CC was going to go along with everything that he was teaching, saying and the doctrines he was proposing as reforms. I seems to me that he must have know that the CC was never going to agree with him and his teachings and doctrines. When I read some of his works it does seem to me that it is more his private interpretations of Scripture than what the CC was teaching at that time and place.

 

[rcwitness]

Warning to my Lutheran Brethren

As much as I personally am very interested in the answer to this question it is OFF TOPIC and I don’t think we should go there (unless you want the thread closed )

guanophore,

I respect your comments which help me understand that modern Lutherans are not to be held accountable to this exchange between Martin and the Pope. I don’t understand it completely, but I’m learning and respecting.

If I have been a nuicance here, Sorry. I’m not trying to distract the thread. Maybe I have. But the thread topic is not really a question, but an open post regarding the exchange of communication which directly related to Martin Luther’s ex communication. I don’t think it’s out of line to address the contents of Martin’s teachings with modern Lutherans to help me in my understanding of their relationship to the reformation.

 

[rcwitness]

It seems to me that Exsurge Domine was about refuting Luther’s doctrines and teachings and pointing out where he went wrong as far as the CC was concerned. At the time Luther was still a catholic and so subject to the teachings and authority of the CC. The Papal Bull wanted Luther to recant these things that the Bull pointed out.

I think part of the problem was this was not so specifically addressed. Maybe Martin was acting too much alone in these ascertions and the Church was not necessarily against all of them, yet had to consider some of them in formal fashion, such as a council, in order for Martin to be making such bold demands and especially to continue teaching them. Some may have passed official Church approval but as of the time, Martin was asked to stop teaching them as though it is Divine Truth. Or as guanophore pointed out, he was ordered to stop preaching all together.

CORRECTION

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

This is pretty specific, isn’t it…

 

[spina1953]

How else can you understand Rom ch. 7?

Hi Gaunophore: My understanding of ch.7 is this: Paul is reflecting on the fact that the Christian has a different understanding of the law because of his faith in Christ. the law binds the living, and not the dead as exemplified in marriage which binds in life but is dissolved through death. The Christian through Baptism has died with Christ to sin id freed from the law that occasioned sin and its punishment of death. Having raised with Christ he is joined to Him in newness of life so as to bear fruit for God.

                      The Apostle defends himself against the charge of identifying the law with sin. Sin does not exist in the law but in man, whose sinful inclinations  are not overcome by the mere proclamation of the law. the man who does not recognize the justifying grace of God recognizes a riff between his reasoned desire for the goodness of the law and his actual performance contrary to the law. these two are opposed as one is unable to free himself from the slavery of sin and the power of death, and he can only be rescued from defeat by the power of God's grace working through Christ.

The Jews did everything according to the law of Moses. it was not doing it because they wanted to but because they were as Jews obligated to follow it in all that they did. The law of Moses imposed a great many rituals to be observed, but the fact is that the law of Moses was a standard that no one could ever hope to attain, that is that the law was not sin but exposed sin to which man was not callable to removing on his own through the practice of the laws of Moses.

it was by the death and resurrection of Christ that man was freed from the law and that the law was no longer binding on man. Paul is trying to say that the law does not save anyone by doing them but that it is the faith in Christ that saves as the power of God’s grace working through Christ, meaning that God’s grace comes from God though Christ, and not by following the ritual requirements of the law of Moses.

 

[spina1953]

guanophore,

I respect your comments which help me understand that modern Lutherans are not to be held accountable to this exchange between Martin and the Pope. I don’t understand it completely, but I’m learning and respecting.

If I have been a nuicance here, Sorry. I’m not trying to distract the thread. Maybe I have. But the thread topic is not really a question, but an open post regarding the exchange of communication which directly related to Martin Luther’s ex communication. I don’t think it’s out of line to address the contents of Martin’s teachings with modern Lutherans to help me in my understanding of their relationship to the reformation.

Ho RCWitness: I agree. We are I think discussing Exsurge Domine and what it says and if anything Luther taught was in error and why he was asked to recant those errors he was teaching and his response to the Papal Bull ordering him to recant or be excommunicated. For myself I am not asking Modern Lutheran’s to defend anything Luther did or said or wrote as this is not about them but the historical perspective of the papal Bull and its meaning in regards to Luther.

 

[spina1953]

Let’s see, where are we? Oh yes, #5 - penal substitution.

The Holy Spirit is sent and the Church exists, and there is only one Church, so that man may become holy, fit for union with God. The process of sanctifying him includes these stages: his reconciliation with God or his justification; his perseverance or increase in holiness; the crowning of his holiness with the beatific vision. With these three things the rest of theology is concerned.

By justification the sinner is restored to a condition of harmony with God. In the words of Sacred Scripture the just man is holy and holiness is justice. Now every kind of justice is an equality, and in this case it is the equivalence between what a man is and what God wants him to be. God’s enduring wish for man is that he live with God’s life and be God’s son. But since, on account of Adam’s sin, he is born without that life, man must be revived or made just again. Thus St. Paul tells the Colossians: “You, when you were dead by reason of your sins, he brought to life.” (Col. 2:13) Hence the Council of Trent says that justification is “the passing from that state in which a man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and adoption among the children of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.” (Denzinger 796)

According to Luther God effects this transfer by a sort of juridic process. The sinner was essentially corrupted by original sin and a sinner he always remains. If, however, he is clothed in the merits of Christ and has confidence that Christ will save him, God will regard him as just. Justification, therefore, is the imputation to the sinner of the merits of Christ. The Council of Trent rejects teaching because “justification . . . is the sanctification and renovation of the interior man through the voluntary reception of grace and the gifts.” (Denzinger 799) The sinner’s renovation involves first, a real removal of sin. According to Sacred Scripture our sins are not merely hidden from God; they are washed away, removed, eradicated, etc. Second, the sinner is reborn to God, he is a new creation, he is transferred from death to life, he is given a new supernatural life.

(cont.)

Hi Tomster: Good post!

 

[rcwitness]

Ho RCWitness: I agree. We are I think discussing Exsurge Domine and what it says and if anything Luther taught was in error and why he was asked to recant those errors he was teaching and his response to the Papal Bull ordering him to recant or be excommunicated. For myself I am not asking Modern Lutheran’s to defend anything Luther did or said or wrote as this is not about them but the historical perspective of the papal Bull and its meaning in regards to Luther.

Right. I understand my questions extend a little from strict adherence to Exsurge Domine. But is’t it relevant to ask modern Lutherans their position on the teachings which caused Luther to be ex communicated? Especially when the Pope is being criticized for his “tone” and the “tone” of Trent.

 

[spina1953]

Spina1953 brought these two specific teachings of Martin to attention.

31)In every good work the just man sins and

1. A good work done very well is a venial sin.

Would you as a Lutheran believe these? And if your Church said to someone in your Sunday school class who was teaching them, “please stop teaching these things” but they said, “no” what would you do?

Hi RCWitness: I am a Catholic of the Latin Rite and also a Discalced Carmelite Secular so I am not a Lutheran and somehow you got confused about whether I am a Catholic or not? I do not know what Lutheran’s would do in the case you mentioned but if one were teaching something contrary to what the CC teaches in catechism class, it should be reported and then let the priest decide how to handle it.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi RCWitness: I am a Catholic of the Latin Rite and also a Discalced Carmelite Secular so I am not a Lutheran and somehow you got confused about whether I am a Catholic or not? I do not know what Lutheran’s would do in the case you mentioned but if one were teaching something contrary to what the CC teaches in catechism class, it should be reported and then let the priest decide how to handle it.

No, I understand. It was directed to our Lutheran friends here. Per Crucem answered. I was not wishing to go deep into it. Just an answer.

 

[spina1953]

Right. I understand my questions extend a little from strict adherence to Exsurge Domine. But is’t it relevant to ask modern Lutherans their position on the teachings which caused Luther to be ex communicated? Especially when the Pope is being criticized for his “tone” and the “tone” of Trent.

Hi RCWitness. OH I agree totally with you on that point. it just seems to me that in asking Lutheran’s what their position is on it appears that one is asking them to defend Luther’s actions and or doctrines, and teachings, and the reasons why he was called to recant those things or be excommunicated. the tone of Luther’s words in his writings against those who opposed him whether the Pope or others was extremely vile in nature and crude fro a man who was supposed to be highly educated. I do think asking Lutheran’s what they think about it is fine as long as they understand that we are not asking them to defend Luther.

 

[spina1953]

No, I understand. It was directed to our Lutheran friends here. Per Crucem answered. I was not wishing to go deep into it. Just an answer.

Hi RCWitness: Sorry I think I misunderstood you and though it was directed to me.

 

[benjohnson]

I

BTW, I am speaking as a God parent to my Lutheran neice. The only time I took Communion outside of the Catholic Church was at this Baptism. I do not think this was permissible, but I’m not sure of the technical reasons

If it’s any comfort, the Godparents of my third-child are Catholic and had the same experience - when I asked them why they took communion, the father said "Frankly, I was compelled - that was the Eucharist. "

He did ask his priest about it afterwards and the priest told him to resist doing it again, but didn’t think it was anything to worry about.

 

[rcwitness]

If it’s any comfort, the Godparents of my third-child are Catholic and had the same experience - when I asked them why they took communion, the father said "Frankly, I was compelled - that was the Eucharist. "

He did ask his priest about it afterwards and the priest told him to resist doing it again, but didn’t think it was anything to worry about.

I didn’t feel the need to ask my priest. What was done was done. It was done without opposition to Communion with the Catholic Church. But I too will not continue to do so.
But I’m not happy about not being able to commune with ya’ll.

BTW…

I think modern Lutherans could give us a challenge with defending some of these things. I would have trouble with #33 for sure. I’m not sure the Church does defend this:shrug:

1. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit

 

[spina1953]

Right. I understand my questions extend a little from strict adherence to Exsurge Domine. But is’t it relevant to ask modern Lutherans their position on the teachings which caused Luther to be ex communicated? Especially when the Pope is being criticized for his “tone” and the “tone” of Trent.

Hi RCWitness: I agree with your point that it is relevant to ask modern Lutheran’s what their position is regarding Luther’s teachings and doctrines that caused him to be excommunicated. However it seems to me that in asking them some seems to take it as wanting them to defend something about Luther that they do not with to defend or some might think it is somehow Luther bashing when in fact it is not. It not all but some. The tone of Luther’s written works against those opposed to him was rather vile and crude in my opinion.

 

[KathleenGee]

Guanaphore brought forward a most tremendous witness…that with patience…we must wait for the Church’s decision on new pastoral practices and theologies, and trust in time, a most balanced and definitive statement will be publicly declared.

If Luther only had the temperment to trust and wait, he would have been possibly declared a saint for reformation in the Church that was in most need. Sola Scriptura allows anyone to go forward without any check or balances…and thus creates so many divisions within Christianity.