A Quick Summary of Exsurge Domine

[KathleenGee]

Likewise, agree with Spina…we Catholics have all had to atleast be aware that the Church was partly responsible itself for the behavior and practices of its own authorities.

I remember a director of religious education coming back to the parish after a day or two at the chancery hearing what all happened in the Church prior to the split and she was devastated to say the least.

 

[spina1953]

In 1518 in the Heidelberg Dosputation Luther affirmed that since the fall of Adam or after actual sin, free will exists only in name, and when it does what it can, it commits sin. This was one of the 41 articles condemned in Exsurge Domine in 1520. In response Luther wrote An Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly Condemned in the Papal Bull and in he says:" So it is necessary to retract this article. For I was wrong in saying that free choice before grace is a reality only in name. I should have said simply free choice is in reality a fiction or a name without reality. For no one has it in his power to think a good or bad thought, but everything happens by absolute necessary." Luther wrote this early on in his conflict with the CC and its teachings on man’s free will was wrong, and so set forth his views in the pamphlet refuting Exsurge Domine.

This sound a lot like predestination in that as I understand it man has no free will so that in effect man can not choose. and if and when he does choose it is sin no matter what he does. But what seems to me is an contradiction as if man is not able to choose as Luther states than man never had free will to begin with. And if man does have free will man can not do anything but sin since he can not choose to accept God, unless God makes the choice for him. This how I am understanding it and I think that the CC at that time decided that Luther’s teaching or doctrine that man does not have free will to choose God or not was in error and was wrong. The above quote appears to say just that, that man has no free will there by can not choose God so God has to choose for him or if he does have free will of some sort than he can only sin. Makes no sense to me as to how Luther came to conclude or come to this conclusion.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Hi Topper: You might if you get the chance read Luther’s pamphlet of Nov.1520 called Condemned in the Papal Bull in which Luther defended his views and called the Pope the Antichrist, which kinda shows that Luther was not only vulgar but crass and crude and very much disrespectful. which does not seem to be very Christian to me or what Jesus Himself taught or would agree that one should speak in such a manor.

Thanks for the tip. According to the editors of Luther’s Works Vol 32, Luther responded to ‘Exsurge Domine’ with four separate tracts. It seems that the only one that is in LW is the last one - “Defense and Explanation of All of the Articles” Where did you find “Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly…”?

As for Luther’s ‘demeanor’, we must remember that at this point in time, Luther had absolutely no intention of considering any kind of compromise or negotiation. He had laid out his doctrinal innovations and the Church had rejected them as heresy. To Luther, this was proof that the Church was NOT the Church, and the pope was the antichrist.

What is probably impossible to truly understand is what it was, specifically and exactly that made Luther SO SURE that all of those other people were that wrong on so many issues. It seems to me that, ultimately, it was that certainty that precluded him from considering compromise or negotiation. The real question is whether his certainty was justified and whether there is rational argument for his beliefs being superior to those of the historic Church.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

BTW, do you have any quotes from “Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly…” that would give us any insight to Luther’s thinking?

 

[steido01]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for the tip. According to the editors of Luther’s Works Vol 32, Luther responded to ‘Exsurge Domine’ with four separate tracts. It seems that the only one that is in LW is the last one - “Defense and Explanation of All of the Articles” Where did you find “Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly…”?

As for Luther’s ‘demeanor’, we must remember that at this point in time, Luther had absolutely no intention of considering any kind of compromise or negotiation. He had laid out his doctrinal innovations and the Church had rejected them as heresy. To Luther, this was proof that the Church was NOT the Church, and the pope was the antichrist.

What is probably impossible to truly understand is what it was, specifically and exactly that made Luther SO SURE that all of those other people were that wrong on so many issues. It seems to me that, ultimately, it was that certainty that precluded him from considering compromise or negotiation. The real question is whether his certainty was justified and whether there is rational argument for his beliefs being superior to those of the historic Church.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

BTW, do you have any quotes from “Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly…” that would give us any insight to Luther’s thinking?

Seriously? Again, Topper?

Well, the thread was useful while it lasted…

 

[Topper17]

Hi guano,

He had good reason to expect to be imprisoned or executed for his speech and writings. It would be difficult to find anyone on record who had been more inflammatory. Assassins could find great favor from powerful people by putting away nuisances.

You state that Luther had good reasons to believe that he might be executed. Huss of course was executed, but that was more than a hundred years earlier. Do you know how many people had been executed in the 100+ years between Huss and Luther?

You mention assassins. Do you know of any ‘assignation attempts’ that were made on Luther’s life, ever, or even of any serious discussions about attempts on his life. Your implication that powerful people wanted him dead reflects poorly on the Church. I would also suggest that if the Church had really wanted him dead and was willing to put a bounty on his head, over the course of the last 25 years of his life, he would have met a violent end. He did not of course.

I do know that after the Peasant’s War, he didn’t feel that he could freely travel the countryside for fear of his life. It would seem that that fear was probably well grounded given that he recommended that the peasant be slaughtered without mercy, and 100,000 were. They were very ‘upset’ with Martin, and they had good reasons.

 

[Topper17]

Seriously? Again, Topper?

Well, the thread was useful while it lasted…

The subject of this thread is Luther’s excommunication. Only one of us wants to see the historical facts of the situation revealed and only one of us wants to see the thread closed down.

 

[steido01]

The subject of this thread is Luther’s excommunication. Only one of us wants to see the historical facts of the situation revealed and only one of us wants to see the thread closed down.

The subject of the thread is the Papal Bull,* Exsurge Domine*. The subject of the thread is not Martin Luther’s demeanor.

I do not wish to see this thread shut down (how rare it is to discuss an actual primary document instead of modern opinions!). I wish to see you learn how to discuss historical topics without mutating a thread into a Luther bashing. You’ve yet to participate in a thread without derailing it.

So please, can we get back to discussing the Bull? Discussing it point by point is a good way of doing it.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Return to the topic of the thread

 

[Tomyris]

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

Hmmmm.

So the Pope was saying Luther was wrong in not advocating that heretics be burned.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Yes I think it is entirely appropriate to dialogue with our Lutheran brethren about their beliefs and how they relate to the Reformation, and most especially, how they affect unity today.

However, it is important not to hold Lutherans accountable for the deeds and sayings of Luther to which they have never subscribed. It is best to address their statements of faith through their Confessions.

 

[guanophore]

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.

While I agree with all you have said here, there is nothing in your summary about Paul’s description of himself as being able to will what is right, but not to do it. The struggle with sin is a personal one - one that every Christian has to fight every day.

 

[guanophore]

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.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I think in general it is, but recently there has been a great deal of fault finding with Luther that has spread into fault finding with Lutherans. For those who never accepted many of the things Luther said and did that resulted in his excommunication, it is unproductive and demoralizing to put them in a position to be held to answer for him. If we could successfully explore their views without lapsing into questioning their faith an integrity because they are called “Lutheran” I don’t think it would be problematic.

 

[guanophore]

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

I think this gets back to the death penalty in general. The Church does not specifically teach against it, though recent popes have said that it is not necessary anymore. At the time, ,the death penalty for treason was very common, and heresy was considered a form of treason because there was no separation of Church and State.

It was considered an acceptable form of discipline:

3 For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment 4 in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5** you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved **in the day of the Lord Jesus. I Cor 5:3-6.

 

[guanophore]

Hmmmm.

So the Pope was saying Luther was wrong in not advocating that heretics be burned.

Yes. That the death penalty is not necessarily contrary to the will of God, who clearly has a history of commanding it in the past.

 

[rcwitness]

I think this gets back to the death penalty in general. The Church does not specifically teach against it, though recent popes have said that it is not necessary anymore. At the time, ,the death penalty for treason was very common, and heresy was considered a form of treason because there was no separation of Church and State.

It was considered an acceptable form of discipline:

3 For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment 4 in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5** you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved **in the day of the Lord Jesus. I Cor 5:3-6.

Acts 5 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

Ananias and Sapphira
5 But a man named Anani′as with his wife Sapphi′ra sold a piece of property, 2 and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Anani′as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” 5 When Anani′as heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. 6 The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.

7 After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” 9 But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear came upon the whole church,[a] and upon all who heard of these things.

Yes, these are difficult passages to use to advocate Capitol punishment. But there clearly shown, the Holy Spirit putting to death those who bring in dangerous opposition. I think we all can appreciate how the practice was taken way out of hand. And it is now counter productive to excecute an enemy of the Church. I think the principal of the Holy Spirit taking this extreme sometimes, is to remove the enemy who came from within. Not just an outside persecuter. These are the worst enemies of the Church. Yet we also have Jesus telling the disciples not to seek out and seperate the weeds from the wheat.

 

[spina1953]

While I agree with all you have said here, there is nothing in your summary about Paul’s description of himself as being able to will what is right, but not to do it. The struggle with sin is a personal one - one that every Christian has to fight every day.

Hi Guanophore: Yes, you are correct that I did not say anything about Paul. You did not ask that, only what about Ch.7 and gave a summary. Now that you ask, Ch.7: 13-25 shows that Paul was speaking about himself in the matter of the will and sin. However, to get the fullness of what Paul is saying one has to understand the whole of it which Paul’s thesis is two themes; The Gospel he was preaching that the justice of God is revealed (1:17-4:25) and the love of God assures us of salvation. (5:1-11:36) and (12:1-15:14) deals with the duties of Christians based on the teaching unfolded in ch.1-11.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for the tip. According to the editors of Luther’s Works Vol 32, Luther responded to ‘Exsurge Domine’ with four separate tracts. It seems that the only one that is in LW is the last one - “Defense and Explanation of All of the Articles” Where did you find “Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly…”?

As for Luther’s ‘demeanor’, we must remember that at this point in time, Luther had absolutely no intention of considering any kind of compromise or negotiation. He had laid out his doctrinal innovations and the Church had rejected them as heresy. To Luther, this was proof that the Church was NOT the Church, and the pope was the antichrist.

What is probably impossible to truly understand is what it was, specifically and exactly that made Luther SO SURE that all of those other people were that wrong on so many issues. It seems to me that, ultimately, it was that certainty that precluded him from considering compromise or negotiation. The real question is whether his certainty was justified and whether there is rational argument for his beliefs being superior to those of the historic Church.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

BTW, do you have any quotes from “Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly…” that would give us any insight to Luther’s thinking?

Hi Topper: The historical impetus for Exsurge Domine rose from the effort to provide a decisive response to the growing popularity of Luther’s doctrines. beginning in Jan.1520, a papal consistory was summoned to examine Luther’s fidelity to Catholic teaching. After a through examination and consideration the committee of about 40 people including theologians and canon lawyers, the heads of three major monastic orders, Dominicans, Franciscans and Augustinians, produced a report that determined that 41 of Luther’s teachings and doctrines were deemed to be either heretical or erroneous from the standpoint of Catholic theology.
Luther in refuting the papal Bull defiantly proclaimed in his response that "...whoever wrote this Bull, he is the Antichrist." Its very obvious that Luther believed that his personal interpretation of Scripture was the only correct interpretation to hold and that the Catholic Church and the Pope were the one's teaching falsely.

 

[Contarini]

I think this gets back to the death penalty in general. The Church does not specifically teach against it, though recent popes have said that it is not necessary anymore. At the time, ,the death penalty for treason was very common, and heresy was considered a form of treason because there was no separation of Church and State.

No, that just isn’t true. Heresy and treason were quite distinct crimes. The confusion seems to come from a single statement of Innocent III who said that heresy was treason against Christ. Obviously that doesn’t mean that heresy is the same as civil treason. It was a separate crime, and the point of Innocent’s statement was that it’s worse: if treason against a civil monarch should be punished by death, how much more should treason against Christ be so punished?

Traitors were typically torn apart in some way (hung, drawn, and quartered in England). Heretics were burned. Different crimes, different punishments.

Church and state weren’t separate in our modern sense, but they were distinct parallel hierarchies with different legal systems, which often conflicted with each other. The Magisterial Reformation, by and large, resulted in a greater union of church and state, not their separation.

Luther himself would later essentially take the position you mistakenly ascribe to the medieval Church: that heresy should not be punished per se, but that governments had the right to punish religious groups that were tearing society apart.

If I were going to defend ED #33, I’d do it along almost opposite lines to yours: that the Pope was defending the Church’s autonomy by defending the idea that heresy is a separate crime from treason or sedition, and is grave in its own right rather than simply being a matter of public order.

But I don’t see why people on this forum feel the need to defend ED #33. Why not just say “it’s not covered by the charism of infallibility” and move on?

Edwin

 

[rcwitness]

But I don’t see why people on this forum feel the need to defend ED #33. Why not just say “it’s not covered by the charism of infallibility” and move on?

Edwin

Are you sure about that??? There are some pretty powerfull statements going on in this letter…

"Arise, O Lord, and judge your own cause…

…When you were about to ascend to your Father, you committed the care, rule, and administration of the vineyard, an image of the triumphant church, to Peter, as the head and your vicar and his successors…

…Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above…

…Let all this holy Church of God, I say, arise, and with the blessed apostles intercede with almighty God to purge the errors of His sheep, to banish all heresies from the lands of the faithful, and be pleased to maintain the peace and unity of His holy Church…

…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:"