A Quick Summary of Exsurge Domine

[spina1953]

Hi RCWitness: You are correct in that Exsurge Domine there are very powerful statements. I would like to add a little more to what you posted. Further on down it says about Luther and those who follow Luther says: " rebuking them, in violation of your teaching, instead of imploring them, he is not ashamed to assail them, to tear at them, and when he despairs of his cause, to stoop to insults. he is like the heretics whose last defense" as Jerome says," is to start spewing out a serpents venom with their tongue when they see that their cause are about to be condemned, and spring to insults when they see they are vanquished…some, putting aside her true interpretation of Sacred Scripture, are blinded in mind by the father of lies. Wise in their own eyes, according to ancient practice of heretics, they interpret these same Scriptures otherwise than the Holy Spirit demands, inspired only by their own sense of ambition, and for the sake of popular acclaim, as the Apostles declares. In fact, they twist and adulterate the Scriptures. As a result, according to Jerome," It is no longer the Gospel of Christ, but a man’s or what is worse, the devil’s."

These are some very powerful words in this document and it spells out just what they think about Luther and those who follow him. One thing I think they hit the nail on the head is they saw that Luther’s interpretation of Scripture was nothing more than his personal interpretations and his own personal understanding rather than what the CC was really teaching.

What this document is also saying in effect is that Luther rather than discussing his doctrines and teachings in a civilized manor as a highly educated person, Luther responded with disrespect, rudeness, vile language and insults, and them wonders why the CC authorities wanted him to recant his teachings and doctrines since the CC believed that in no way did it conform to the Scriptures as the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church had understood it and taught since the time of the Apostles.

Now, all of a sudden, here comes a man, Luther, who says that all this time, the CC has been teaching falsely and that the CC’s doctrines and teachings did not conform to Scripture and only Luther was able to see it and call attention to it and only Luther has the right and correct doctrines and teachings. Luther also decided that John Huss was correct in his beliefs and that the Cc did not have the right to call him a heretic since he was a true Christian. Luther was not willing to listen to anyone but his own mind and everyone was wrong and he was right. Luther went so far as to say it was not him speaking but God’s words. Makes one wonder about the man at least from the historical viewpoint.

 

[Tomyris]

Hi RCWitness: You are correct in that Exsurge Domine there are very powerful statements. I would like to add a little more to what you posted. Further on down it says about Luther and those who follow Luther says: " rebuking them, in violation of your teaching, instead of imploring them, he is not ashamed to assail them, to tear at them, and when he despairs of his cause, to stoop to insults. he is like the heretics whose last defense" as Jerome says," is to start spewing out a serpents venom with their tongue when they see that their cause are about to be condemned, and spring to insults when they see they are vanquished…some, putting aside her true interpretation of Sacred Scripture, are blinded in mind by the father of lies. Wise in their own eyes, according to ancient practice of heretics, they interpret these same Scriptures otherwise than the Holy Spirit demands, inspired only by their own sense of ambition, and for the sake of popular acclaim, as the Apostles declares. In fact, they twist and adulterate the Scriptures. As a result, according to Jerome," It is no longer the Gospel of Christ, but a man’s or what is worse, the devil’s."

These are some very powerful words in this document and it spells out just what they think about Luther and those who follow him. One thing I think they hit the nail on the head is they saw that Luther’s interpretation of Scripture was nothing more than his personal interpretations and his own personal understanding rather than what the CC was really teaching.

What this document is also saying in effect is that **Luther rather than discussing his doctrines and teachings in a civilized manor as a highly educated person, Luther responded with disrespect, rudeness, vile language and insults, and them wonders why the CC authorities wanted him to recant his teachings and doctrines since the CC believed that in no way did it conform to the Scriptures as the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church had understood it and taught since the time of the Apostles.

Now, all of a sudden, here comes a man, Luther, who says that all this time, the CC has been teaching falsely and that the CC’s doctrines and teachings did not conform to Scripture and only Luther was able to see it and call attention to it and only Luther has the right and correct doctrines and teachings. Luther also decided that John Huss was correct in his beliefs and that the Cc did not have the right to call him a heretic since he was a true Christian. Luther was not willing to listen to anyone but his own mind and everyone was wrong and he was right. Luther went so far as to say it was not him speaking but God’s words. Makes one wonder about the man at least from the historical viewpoint**.

This thread is about Ex Surge. Why do you and others continually insist on turning it into one on Luther? Are you simply defying the Moderator? What is the problem here?

Sheesh.

 

[Tomyris]

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:"

The gibe that follows was that the Pope was saying Luther simply wasn’t bloodthirsty enough to be a good Catholic. Burn a few people and all would be well, thought Leo in #33.

What, Luther preferred to hang, draw and quarter them instead? Was it a question of method, or was the Pope thinking Luther was putting daisies into the mouths of muskets and turning swords into plowshares? What was behind #33?

 

[spina1953]

This thread is about Ex Surge. Why do you and others continually insist on turning it into one on Luther? Are you simply defying the Moderator? What is the problem here?

Sheesh.

It so happens that the is from Exsurge Domine and it was about Luther and his teachings and doctrines were quoted from the document, and that what we are discussing which by the way Exsurge Domine was the Papal Bull that was to be given to Luther who in turn burned it. So if you think that Exsurge Domine was not about Luther I would like to know how you come by that thinking.

 

[steido01]

It so happens that the is from Exsurge Domine and it was about Luther and his teachings and doctrines were quoted from the document, and that what we are discussing which by the way Exsurge Domine was the Papal Bull that was to be given to Luther who in turn burned it. So if you think that Exsurge Domine was not about Luther I would like to know how you come by that thinking.

Here’s how: it’s about ideas, not a man.

 

[spina1953]

Here’s how: it’s about ideas, not a man.

However, the ideas come from the man.

 

[spina1953]

I just want to make this perfectly clear that I am not asking any Lutheran to agree or disagree or defend anything Luther said or did according to the document Exsurge Domine. I believe that what I have posted is germane to this document Exsurge Domine as it pertains to Luther’s teachings writings and doctrines that the document talks about, and that which is related to it and the man and men who wrote it and to whom it refers to.

Obviously there was a reason as to why there was a Papal Bull issued to Luther concerning his teachings, doctrines and writings that the CC felt needed to be addressed as to the CC Luther’s teachings and doctrines did not conform to what the CC was teaching and had taught throughout the centuries since the time of the Apostles. Luther of course could have responded in a more civilized manor but he did not and choose instead to insult and be rude and use vile language to respond to the Papal Bull, which does not sound to me to be a civilized position to take be as that may. The document talks about Luther’s teachings and doctrines in his writings and after coming to an understanding of what Luther wrote decided that it was not based on any Catholic Church teachings and wanted Luther to recant them which he did not and was not willing to do. Luther it seemed already decided that his personal interpretations of Scriptures was correct and the CC teachings were wrong and false. This is what led up the Decit Romanum Pontificum which excommunicated Luther.

 

[Tomyris]

Ex Surge is one of the few documents in which the Catholic Church officially said anything about these issues in a thousand years. It was a prelude to Trent, an expression of its own beliefs and what was wrong with it, how it perceived its own authority, etc. In it the CC identified what it thought the issues were, and those points are not just refutations but statements of what the CC thought. I am interested in it apart from Luther the man, as it represents what the CC THOUGHT he was saying at that time. It is an early understanding , a snapshot if you will, of the thinking of the times.

It is utter stupidity to turn it into a discussion of Luther. Totally, vapid, monomaniac, psychotic idiot behavior. As if the Civil War could be defined only in terms of Lincoln, or classical music in terms of Mozart, or cooking in terms of Julia Child. By insisting on making it about Luther you blind yourself to the times, to what the church was saying, to the forces of the *via moderna *versus the via antiqua, the sources of authority, the political and economic situation, to the forces of reformation within the church and their fate, etc., etc., etc. Here we have an expression at a high level of what the Church was thinking. And you insist on Luther-bashing. Bah.

I can read here things from a Catholic or a Lutheran perspective that I would never discuss on my own, or I could if the monotonous drone of what-is-wrong-with-Luther would ever end.

 

[Topper17]

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.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

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.

I agree.

Thanks for your response.

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.

“Exsurge Domine” is a fascinating subject. As always, the historical context, meaning the actual historical facts about a situation are enlightening. In regards to the manner in which ‘Exsurge Domine’ was formulated, there is some additional information which shows how the Church took the matter extremely seriously.

“Every step Luther took drew attention. In early February 1520, Cajetan co-chaired a commission in Rome that was called together specifically to examine Luther’s writings for heresy. In March he was condemned by the universities of Louvain and Cologne. He commented, ‘We will pay no more attention to their condemnation than to the silly ravings of a drunken woman.’……….Finally, on June 24, 1520, the bull ‘Exsurge Domine’ was published in Rome. It gave Luther 60 days to recant or be excommunicated along with all his followers. **The reformer was in no mood to compromise.” **(Lutheran) James M. Kittelson, |”Luther the Reformer”, pg. 149

Lutheran Professor E. G. Schweibert does a particularly good job on “Exsurge Domine”

“Reports of the Leipzig Debate, the condemnation of many fundamental doctrines in Luther’s works by the important theological faculties of Cologne and Louvain, all pointed to the gravity with which the situation was viewed.” Schweibert, “Luther and His Times”, pg. 481

In regards to the commissions that you mentioned that were assigned to review Luther’s works for possible heresy:

“The work began on February 1, 1520. Much discussion revolved around the questions: Should Luther’s writings be re-examined and the errors actually pointed out to him? Would it perhaps be sufficient to take the Louvain list? Should the errors be condemned separately or en masse? The papal Vice-Chencellor, Guilio de Medici, realized that the commission was too unwieldy for efficient operation and needed to be revamped. Under Cajaten’s leadership a smaller, abler, second commission was organized which favored giving Luther a second chance. Still later a third commission of four was created composed of two cardinals, Eck, and a Spanish doctor. According to Kalkoff, who has traced the origin of each article in the bull, the small commission drew heavily on the Cologne and Louvain articles of condemnation, but it was also influenced by Eck’s report. Had he not been one of the group which drafted the 41 articles of condemnation in the bull, their tone might have been much milder. But before the finished draft of the document was presented to the papal consistory, Leo also met with the group.” Schwiebert, pg. 483

Here we learn that ‘Exsurge Domine’ wasn’t just some rant dashed off by an enemy of Luther (like Eck). It was a very serious matter and was handled as such. Two whole universities had condemned Luther’s writings as heretical and in fact, four commissions and the Pope himself had had a hand in the bull (“Exsurge Domine”) warning Luther of possible excommunication. Obviously the bull was very well thought out.

As for “Exsurge Domine” itself, Schweibert continues:

“This introduction was followed by forty-one articles that had been condemned from Luther’s writings. Luther was in error on original sin, concupiscence, penance, justification by faith, the Lord’s Supper, the true treasures of the Church, indulgences, excommunication, the power of the Pope, general councils, good works, free will, purgatory, etc., which if not recanted, exposed both him and his protectors to the dangers of the interdict.” Schweibert, pg. 485

I think the interesting thing about this quote is the large number of beliefs which were condemned, which points to the magnitude of the differences between Luther and the Church.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[steido01]

This has become embarrassing.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Yes, of course, but getting back to your original point, it is clear in the passage that Paul is able to will what is good, but cannot (apart from grace) do it. This passage shows that the will of man is not totally depraved, but wounded, and that human beings, though fallen, are still able to will what is good.

 

[guanophore]

Here’s how: it’s about ideas, not a man.

I think is both. It is quite clear from the title :

CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF MARTIN LUTHER

Exsurge Domine

Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520

that the “ideas” belonged to a specific person.

" The wild boar from the forest seeks to destroy it and every wild beast feeds upon it. "

The wild boar is a very specific reference to Luther. It has a specific historical context.

“Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin…”

That sounds pretty personal.

"As far as Martin himself is concerned…But he always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come. To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year. What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. "

Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.

"Therefore let Martin himself …we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. Let him abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us…

We enjoin, however, on Martin that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher. "

Sounds to me it is about the man, and his ideas.

 

[guanophore]

No, that just isn’t true.

I am certain there are many different ways of looking at this, but one valid one is that heresy has been considered a form of treason.

Heresy and treason were quite distinct crimes.

Certainly the can be, and have been treated as such, but as the above cited case study indicates, it all depends upon the monarch. I would add that it also depends upon the culture in which the monarch is ruling.

Even within the document of ED itself, we see the Pope commending the German monarchy for treating heresies as a form of treason, and urging the same “extermination” from the realm of Lutherans.

“these same Germans, our predecessors and we always took the Church’s advocates and defenders from among them. Indeed it is certain that these Germans, truly germane to the Catholic faith, have always been the bitterest opponents of heresies, as witnessed by those commendable constitutions of the German emperors in behalf of the Church’s independence, freedom, and the expulsion and extermination of all heretics from Germany.”

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

I am not so sure the Pope cared how the German Emperor “exterminated” the heretics. :bigyikes:

I don’t know how things were before the The Treasons Act 1534 was passed by the Parliament of England in 1534, during the reign of King Henry VIII, but it made it treason, punishable by death, to disavow the Act of Supremacy. Sir Thomas More was executed under this Act.

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.

I think it is beyond the scope of this thread, but I think a very good case can be made that this was, indeed, the position of the CC.

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.

Certainly that would work as well, if not better.

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?

Ok.

 

[spina1953]

Yes, of course, but getting back to your original point, it is clear in the passage that Paul is able to will what is good, but cannot (apart from grace) do it. This passage shows that the will of man is not totally depraved, but wounded, and that human beings, though fallen, are still able to will what is good.

Hi Guanophore: yes, That is true enough as you state. Man can will good but without God’s grace (the acceptance of His love) man is not able to preform the good he wants to do. And as you said it is because of his fallen nature due to the original sin of Adam &Eve. Without God man is not able to do anything of his own; even existing without God. Even the most evil person one can think of has the spark of God within them, though they ignore it for their own selfish purpose, yet, it is still there so that if the will desires it God’s grace can change the evil to good. But without God nothing happens.

  Unlike the angels who rejected God through their sin of pride they knew what they were doing when they did and what would happen if and when they did sin, however, with man, man did not understand the what would happen and besides that they were in a way tricked into sinning, so God while He forgave Adam &Eve, they would have to taste the death of the body, yet, have hope of life for the soul. God did promise that He would in time send His Son to redeem them (man) because God loves greater than man could ever do of his own self as everything man had has been given to him from God except sin which is contrary to God's nature.

  God gave man free will to choose either God or oneself. God did not want to force man to love Him but rather to choose to love Him, this was never taken away from man, though he sinned. So man wills himself to want to love God but because of his fallen nature is not able to without God's help and His love (grace).

 

[spina1953]

I think is both. It is quite clear from the title :

CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF MARTIN LUTHER

Exsurge Domine

Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520

that the “ideas” belonged to a specific person.

" The wild boar from the forest seeks to destroy it and every wild beast feeds upon it. "

The wild boar is a very specific reference to Luther. It has a specific historical context.

“Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin…”

That sounds pretty personal.

"As far as Martin himself is concerned…But he always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come. To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year. What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. "

Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.

"Therefore let Martin himself …we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. Let him abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us…

We enjoin, however, on Martin that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher. "

Sounds to me it is about the man, and his ideas.

Hi Gaunophore: After reading your this post of yours on Exsurge Domine, I have to say that you are correct that it is about the man and also his ideas. You were quite right in pointing that out. What you quoted from the document shows to me that the CC while not using the best of tact, was willing to forgive Luther if he was willing to recant. I will not say that the document not without some reference to Luther being some sort of vile creature, as one can see from the strong nature of the document and the stern voice of what was said, it does seem to me that they were willing enough to forgo and excommunication if Luther recanted. However, while Eck knew Luther’s writings and teaching better than the rest of the committee, he was rather to strong willed a person to give the document in person to Luther as they certainly did not like each other, and it was more hate towards each other, which set off Luther on the course he was taking. I do wonder what if; had Luther recanted if the Reformation would have taken a different track.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Spina,

I agree.

Thanks for your response.

“Exsurge Domine” is a fascinating subject. As always, the historical context, meaning the actual historical facts about a situation are enlightening. In regards to the manner in which ‘Exsurge Domine’ was formulated, there is some additional information which shows how the Church took the matter extremely seriously.

“Every step Luther took drew attention. In early February 1520, Cajetan co-chaired a commission in Rome that was called together specifically to examine Luther’s writings for heresy. In March he was condemned by the universities of Louvain and Cologne. He commented, ‘We will pay no more attention to their condemnation than to the silly ravings of a drunken woman.’……….Finally, on June 24, 1520, the bull ‘Exsurge Domine’ was published in Rome. It gave Luther 60 days to recant or be excommunicated along with all his followers. **The reformer was in no mood to compromise.” **(Lutheran) James M. Kittelson, |”Luther the Reformer”, pg. 149

Lutheran Professor E. G. Schweibert does a particularly good job on “Exsurge Domine”

“Reports of the Leipzig Debate, the condemnation of many fundamental doctrines in Luther’s works by the important theological faculties of Cologne and Louvain, all pointed to the gravity with which the situation was viewed.” Schweibert, “Luther and His Times”, pg. 481

In regards to the commissions that you mentioned that were assigned to review Luther’s works for possible heresy:

“The work began on February 1, 1520. Much discussion revolved around the questions: Should Luther’s writings be re-examined and the errors actually pointed out to him? Would it perhaps be sufficient to take the Louvain list? Should the errors be condemned separately or en masse? The papal Vice-Chencellor, Guilio de Medici, realized that the commission was too unwieldy for efficient operation and needed to be revamped. Under Cajaten’s leadership a smaller, abler, second commission was organized which favored giving Luther a second chance. Still later a third commission of four was created composed of two cardinals, Eck, and a Spanish doctor. According to Kalkoff, who has traced the origin of each article in the bull, the small commission drew heavily on the Cologne and Louvain articles of condemnation, but it was also influenced by Eck’s report. Had he not been one of the group which drafted the 41 articles of condemnation in the bull, their tone might have been much milder. But before the finished draft of the document was presented to the papal consistory, Leo also met with the group.” Schwiebert, pg. 483

Here we learn that ‘Exsurge Domine’ wasn’t just some rant dashed off by an enemy of Luther (like Eck). It was a very serious matter and was handled as such. Two whole universities had condemned Luther’s writings as heretical and in fact, four commissions and the Pope himself had had a hand in the bull (“Exsurge Domine”) warning Luther of possible excommunication. Obviously the bull was very well thought out.

As for “Exsurge Domine” itself, Schweibert continues:

“This introduction was followed by forty-one articles that had been condemned from Luther’s writings. Luther was in error on original sin, concupiscence, penance, justification by faith, the Lord’s Supper, the true treasures of the Church, indulgences, excommunication, the power of the Pope, general councils, good works, free will, purgatory, etc., which if not recanted, exposed both him and his protectors to the dangers of the interdict.” Schweibert, pg. 485

I think the interesting thing about this quote is the large number of beliefs which were condemned, which points to the magnitude of the differences between Luther and the Church.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

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.

 

[guanophore]

I do wonder what if; had Luther recanted if the Reformation would have taken a different track.

The Apostles taught that obedience is what brings sanctity, and sanctifies the Church.

"Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; (Heb. 5:8)

" For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly." 1 Peter 4:12–19

12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. 14** If you are reproached for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a wrongdoer, or a mischief-maker; 16 yet if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but under that name let him glorify God.** 17 For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 And
“If the righteous man is scarcely saved,
where will the impious and sinner appear?” 19 Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will do right and entrust their souls to a faithful Creator." 1 Peter 4:12–19

What I see is Luther’s lack of willingness to suffer as Christ suffered, and as a result, instead of bringing purification and reform, the result was schism and heresy. When he was challenged he reviled, and heaped reproach. In the end, his lack of sanctity and humility prevented any beneficial message from reaching the ears of those that most needed to hear it.

I think if the hostile and vituperous attitude and behavior were replaced by fruits of the Spirit, the outcome would have been very different.

 

[rcwitness]

The Apostles taught that obedience is what brings sanctity, and sanctifies the Church.

"Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; (Heb. 5:8)

" For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly." 1 Peter 4:12–19

12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. 14** If you are reproached for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a wrongdoer, or a mischief-maker; 16 yet if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but under that name let him glorify God.** 17 For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 And
“If the righteous man is scarcely saved,
where will the impious and sinner appear?” 19 Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will do right and entrust their souls to a faithful Creator." 1 Peter 4:12–19

What I see is Luther’s lack of willingness to suffer as Christ suffered, and as a result, instead of bringing purification and reform, the result was schism and heresy. When he was challenged he reviled, and heaped reproach. In the end, his lack of sanctity and humility prevented any beneficial message from reaching the ears of those that most needed to hear it.

I think if the hostile and vituperous attitude and behavior were replaced by fruits of the Spirit, the outcome would have been very different.

Very well put.

 

[spina1953]

The Apostles taught that obedience is what brings sanctity, and sanctifies the Church.

"Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; (Heb. 5:8)

" For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly." 1 Peter 4:12–19

12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. 14** If you are reproached for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a wrongdoer, or a mischief-maker; 16 yet if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but under that name let him glorify God.** 17 For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 And
“If the righteous man is scarcely saved,
where will the impious and sinner appear?” 19 Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will do right and entrust their souls to a faithful Creator." 1 Peter 4:12–19

What I see is Luther’s lack of willingness to suffer as Christ suffered, and as a result, instead of bringing purification and reform, the result was schism and heresy. When he was challenged he reviled, and heaped reproach. In the end, his lack of sanctity and humility prevented any beneficial message from reaching the ears of those that most needed to hear it.

I think if the hostile and vituperous attitude and behavior were replaced by fruits of the Spirit, the outcome would have been very different.

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.