All things considered, did Luther have a case?

[Gorgias]

No, the question is which gospel are you preaching? The answer is, not the gospel of Galatians.

Jesus’ Gospel. And no, there’s no internal conflict there, between the Gospels and the Epistles, even though some might wish to say there is.

 

[Hodos]

Jesus’ Gospel. And no, there’s no internal conflict there, between the Gospels and the Epistles, even though some might wish to say there is.

I agree that there is only one and that the Gospels and Epistles are in agreement. Of course that wasn’t the issue to begin with.

 

[Gorgias]

I agree that there is only one and that the Gospels and Epistles are in agreement.

It’s a shame that Luther didn’t think so, as well…

 

[Hodos]

Again, the issue wasn’t with the gospel, it was with the teaching of the medieval Church not being in accord with the one gospel. It is a shame that the cash cow that built St. Peter’s took precedence over issues of correct doctrine.

 

[Gorgias]

it was with the teaching of the medieval Church not being in accord with the one gospel

Please demonstrate how the Church, as a whole, taught something different than the Gospel…

 

[Hodos]

Please demonstrate how the Church, as a whole, taught something different than the Gospel…

Please demonstrate how the practices that Luther brought up in the 95 Theses were in accord with the Gospel. Given that these abuses were taking place under the sanction of the Pope, and that they were not condemned by him or the other ecclesial authorities of the day, these practices constituted the teaching of the Church and the head of the Church which sanctioned them. We would both agree that Luther was not at first addressing the teachings of the entire Church, but that he was addressing specific practices which were out of alignment with the gospel. The reaction of the Church however, was to double-down on the doctrines underpinning these abuses.

 

[JonNC]

I’m not dismissing them! You’re claiming that the pope has no authority unless a council grants it. That’s what I’m showing you is faulty argumentation

Except that I didn’t say that. As canon 6 yes, he has jurisdiction in his area. He has authority there.

And that ‘patriarchate’ would be Rome, right? So, if a revisionist view in the East interprets a council differently than it had earlier been understood, what does that tell us about the politics of that interpretation?

The revisionist view is Rome’s. Only Rome has revised it.

Scriptural authority – and not claimed, but given by Christ Himself in Matthew 16!

That’s a revisionist view of Matthew 16, not claimed in the early Church to mean universal jurisdiction, much less infallibility ex cathedra.

It’s not my claim, it’s the Catholic Church’s.

So, you are claiming an authority granted to you by the Pope?

 

[Gorgias]

Given that these abuses were taking place under the sanction of the Pope, and that they were not condemned by him or the other ecclesial authorities of the day

That’s patently false. Luther wasn’t the only one in the Church complaining about some of the practices of the day. He’s just the only one of them who said “I’m taking my ball and going home and doing things my way; neener neener neener!”

, these practices constituted the teaching of the Church

No, they didn’t. The teaching differed; it was the deviation from the teaching of the Church, by some of its members, that was the problem.

 

[Hodos]

That’s patently false. Luther wasn’t the only one in the Church complaining about some of the practices of the day. He’s just the only one of them who said “I’m taking my ball and going home and doing things my way; neener neener neener!”

LOL, yeah, the others were burnt at the stake. Good on Luther for standing his ground.

 

[goout]

I read Metaxas" biography of Bonhoeffer also. The book doesn’t portray Bonhoeffer as necessarily confused about what the church is, but as one who was searching for it’s essence and it’s true place in the world. He had firm ideas about what he believed it should be. He thirsted for firm doctrine founded on Christ. He detested the progressive and indifferent American theology he encountered at Union.

He was dismayed by the co-opting of Lutheranism in Germany by the state. Remember the “German Christians”? The protestant church in Germany had no firm faith foundation. It became a nationalist tool.
It seems to me that Bonhoeffer felt afloat without a church home. Even the Confessing Church was unappealing to him in the end.
I found that the elephant in the room in all of this was the Catholic Church, which Bonhoeffer found appealing in many ways. But is little discussed in the book.

 

[Sean]

I think Luther did but certainly not Henry

 

[Gorgias]

LOL, yeah, the others were burnt at the stake. Good on Luther for standing his ground.

No, the others deferred to the authority of the Church. “Good on Luther for stomping on the unity of the Church” is more like it…

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Cajetan is not the issue. Other than you try and make him the issue. Cajetan didn’t start a revolt. Luther did.

The liberty of Catholics prior to Trent to hold opinions on the canon is the issue. Cajetan held the same position on the canon as Luther.
But your argument simply proves my point: the opinion on the canon was not the reason for Luther being excommunicated.

I quoted the council of Florence, and the listing of the 73 books of scripture. That council ended long before Luther was even a thought. There was no argument in the Church about the canon. The fact Trent had to state the canon AGAIN, NOT a new canon but the same canon that was from 382, is because of Luther and the Protestant revolt HE STARTED. Cajetan’s opinion didn’t change a thing.

Luther printed his own canon and personal bible, NOT Cajetan.

Luther’s bible was a different canon. His OT canon was NOT the same as the Catholic Canon.

JonNC:

Correct. He included the Prayer of Manasseh. That you don’t like the way he arranged the books is irrelevant, Steve, he felt strongly enough about 74 books to include them in his translation.

It has NOTHING to do with what I like. Luther screwed up big time.

You refer to his translation. That is a constant dodge. It’s about canon. It’s about books called and understood to be scripture.

The Church established the canon NOT Cajetan.

JonNC:

The Church over the centuries has held several canons. Patriarchates in the have differing canons to this day, regardless of Rome’s local synods and councils.

Since 382, the canon of scripture hasn’t changed in the Church… 73 canonical books

JonNC:

I have no problem with the traditional western canon. It has a history dating back to Carthage, Hippo and Rome. I think Luther and Cajetan were probably mistaken in their views. But that, too, is irrelevant. What is relevant is that to hold Luther to a different standard than Cajetan on the canon is biased, and lacking in historical accuracy.

Again, Cajetan isn’t an issue.

1. Luther was branded a heretic, NOT Cajetan
2. Luther was excommunicated, NOT Cajetan
3. Luther revolted from the Church, NOT Cajetan
4. Luther is the father of Protestantism, a huge revolt and heresy in history, effecting many, but NOT Cajetan

So may I suggest,

give it a rest Re: Cajetan. You don’t have a case. AND, I can’t even imagine the CASE AGAINST LUTHER, in judgement.

 

[JonNC]

Again, Cajetan isn’t an issue.

1. Luther was branded a heretic, NOT Cajetan
2. Luther was excommunicated, NOT Cajetan
3. Luther revolted from the Church, NOT Cajetan
4. Luther is the father of Protestantism, a huge revolt and heresy in history, effecting many, but NOT Cajetan

When it comes to equal treatment of those who held a minority view of the canon, it is the issue. And as long as apologists use a double standard on that issue, I won’t let it rest.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Again, Cajetan isn’t an issue.

1. Luther was branded a heretic, NOT Cajetan
2. Luther was excommunicated, NOT Cajetan
3. Luther revolted from the Church, NOT Cajetan
4. Luther is the father of Protestantism, a huge revolt and heresy in history, effecting many, but NOT Cajetan

When it comes to equal treatment of those who held a minority view of the canon, it is the issue. And as long as apologists use a double standard on that issue, I won’t let it rest.

suit yourself.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

steve-b:

Again, Cajetan isn’t an issue.

1. Luther was branded a heretic, NOT Cajetan
2. Luther was excommunicated, NOT Cajetan
3. Luther revolted from the Church, NOT Cajetan
4. Luther is the father of Protestantism, a huge revolt and heresy in history, effecting many, but NOT Cajetan

When it comes to equal treatment of those who held a minority view of the canon, it is the issue. And as long as apologists use a double standard on that issue, I won’t let it rest.

suit yourself.

Thank you…

 

[niceatheist]

Both sides had double standards. Look at how they treated the likes of Erasmus. At first he was well-loved by conservatives and reformers alike. Then suddenly he was the enemy of both. Indeed all the advocates of the “third way”, where there was hope of finding accommodation between reformer and Catholic, were vilified by both sides. The Reformation and the Counter-reformation began to tend towards the irrational. The irony, of course, is that all the Reformation did on both sides is ultimately delivery Christianity into the hands of the temporal powers. The Protestant Princes used the Reformation as a means to break with Rome and set up national churches that they controlled, and the Catholic Powers, in particular Spain, basically seized control of the Church, to the point where Roman envoys could do little other than gaze on in horror and disbelief at how the Counter-Reformation had become little more than a tool of the state.

If the Church then had taken something akin to the stance of the Church now (which is what the pre-Luther reformers had really wanted), keeping by and large out of the halls of power, it’s possible that none of this would have happened. But for Rome, it really was about money, and the Papacy and the bishops throughout Europe failed to see that the economic situation in Europe was transformed, and they couldn’t behave like a Medieval church any more, a kingdom within the kingdoms with its own income and nearly independent sovereign power to bring princes to their knees.

Not that I spare much sympathy for Luther. He freed himself of the perceived enslavement to Rome, and ultimately became a tool of the German rulers, and he mortgaged the Reformation to them so they would have a theological basis for what was the political act of severing relations with Rome.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

JonNC:

steve-b:

Again, Cajetan isn’t an issue.

1. Luther was branded a heretic, NOT Cajetan
2. Luther was excommunicated, NOT Cajetan
3. Luther revolted from the Church, NOT Cajetan
4. Luther is the father of Protestantism, a huge revolt and heresy in history, effecting many, but NOT Cajetan

When it comes to equal treatment of those who held a minority view of the canon, it is the issue. And as long as apologists use a double standard on that issue, I won’t let it rest.

suit yourself.

Thank you…

Jon,

I wasn’t agreeing.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

steve-b:

JonNC:

steve-b:

Again, Cajetan isn’t an issue.

1. Luther was branded a heretic, NOT Cajetan
2. Luther was excommunicated, NOT Cajetan
3. Luther revolted from the Church, NOT Cajetan
4. Luther is the father of Protestantism, a huge revolt and heresy in history, effecting many, but NOT Cajetan

When it comes to equal treatment of those who held a minority view of the canon, it is the issue. And as long as apologists use a double standard on that issue, I won’t let it rest.

suit yourself.

Thank you…

Jon,

I wasn’t agreeing.

I know. We don’t agree on this issue. I do not respect you less as a result.

 

[steve-b]

Both sides had double standards. Look at how they treated the likes of Erasmus. At first he was well-loved by conservatives and reformers alike. Then suddenly he was the enemy of both. Indeed all the advocates of the “third way”, where there was hope of finding accommodation between reformer and Catholic, were vilified by both sides. The Reformation and the Counter-reformation began to tend towards the irrational. The irony, of course, is that all the Reformation did on both sides is ultimately delivery Christianity into the hands of the temporal powers. The Protestant Princes used the Reformation as a means to break with Rome and set up national churches that they controlled, and the Catholic Powers, in particular Spain, basically seized control of the Church, to the point where Roman envoys could do little other than gaze on in horror and disbelief at how the Counter-Reformation had become little more than a tool of the state.

If the Church then had taken something akin to the stance of the Church now (which is what the pre-Luther reformers had really wanted), keeping by and large out of the halls of power, it’s possible that none of this would have happened. But for Rome, it really was about money, and the Papacy and the bishops throughout Europe failed to see that the economic situation in Europe was transformed, and they couldn’t behave like a Medieval church any more, a kingdom within the kingdoms with its own income and nearly independent sovereign power to bring princes to their knees.

Not that I spare much sympathy for Luther.

Luther’s errors were publicly listed. They are still errors today. And as far as I know, unless someone has different information, Luther didn’t change his positions till his death.

niceatheist:

He freed himself of the perceived enslavement to Rome, and ultimately became a tool of the German rulers, and he mortgaged the Reformation to them so they would have a theological basis for what was the political act of severing relations with Rome.

This isn’t about a city, but a “see”. One bishop’s chair. PETER’S chair, his see, and in extension, Peter’s successors from that see, that chair.

Jesus made Peter who he is.