Did Luther claim for himself that infallibility, which he would not allow to the Church of Christ?

[TertiumQuid]

Where does this quote/writing come from?
If these are his words, it doesn’t sound like he’s claiming “infallibility” for himself with them.
.

The documentation refers to “Tom. 2, fol. 305, 2.” This refers to a page from the second edition of the Wittenberg edition of Luther’s Works (the edition I located has the quote at fol. 306, 2). This is the Latin version. The original German version can be found in WA 10 2:105 (Wider den falsch genantten geystlichen stand des Babst und der bischoffen). The text was written in 1522, early in Luther’s Reformation battle.

Someone already mentioned the treatise is found in English in LW 39 (Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So Called). In context, the quote does not read as it’s being cited. It’s been pieced together from multiple paragraphs pieced together from pages 247-249.

My opinion is that the context demonstrates that Luther was highly polemical, and I would add, seemingly (or justifiably) angry.He was not claiming infallibility in the Catholic sense.

Here’s a question to think about related to this:

If I quote this verse of scripture here on this forum:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Am I speaking infallibly?

 

[rcwitness]

Here’s a question to think about related to this:

If I quote this verse of scripture here on this forum:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Am I speaking infallibly?

Ha! No, of course not. You are repeating what has been infallibly declared inerrant!

 

[rcwitness]

Well I can’t change the way others think.
But I wish Catholics would know that most Holy Spirit filled, Sola Scriptura practicing Christians
consider infallibility as a Divine-only attribute.

The Catholic faith believes what evangelicals may call “God’s Sovereignty” to be the principle which Infallibility rests. He is in control and able to control.

It doesn’t mean He interferes with our free will, but is able to manage His plan despite man’s resistance to Him.

The cross is the ultimate example of this. And there are others.

Satan needed permission to afflict Job. He needed God to allow him to meddle with Job’s life. Do you think that God does not oversee what the Devil is doing against the Church His Son founded and shares His Keys with?

We are but weak and pliable clumps of clay to Him.

He may use a duration of time that seems long to us. Or He may seem to be silent or absent to us. But we know that He is alive, active and has already seen the future. He is even already in the future.

Or consider the Chief Priest when he prophesied that “…it is better that one man should die, than for a whole nation to perish”. Did the Priest understand what he was saying? Probably not. He had the perspective of the enemy. But he also spoke a profound Truth because God used his words to prophesy!

 

[Peter_J]

I like to think that ML’s criticisms would have been significantly less harsh if the RCC in his day had been comparable to the RCC of today.

 

[Peter_J]

Gee, what will future historians think of us for our writings? One minute posting a cat, the next minute re-posting some venomous diatribe against a political candidate. What manic-depressive people we all were! Especially online! Look, this is silly. Luther wrote more than perhaps anybody in history up to that point, and his writings and thoughts were shared by many thanks to movable type, and collected by even more (partly thanks to the ingrained concept of “relics” inherited from Roman Catholicism). But for some mere historian (not even a trained psychologist!) to look back 500 and make a medical diagnosis? Utterly stupid, at best. Slanderous, at worst.

To look on the positive side, the poster you responded to cited a TV show. I find that a pretty refreshing change from people saying “A Catholic blogger said Blank, so there.”

 

[Peter_J]

Where is the infallibility claim?
Am I missing something?

I think Contrarini is understanding “infallibility” as “certainty” (though I could be wrong).

 

[rcwitness]

I think Contrarini is understanding “infallibility” as “certainty” (though I could be wrong).

…Or asserting (and teaching) as absolute fact.

 

[alwayswill]

The Catholic faith believes what evangelicals may call “God’s Sovereignty” to be the principle which Infallibility rests. He is in control and able to control.

It doesn’t mean He interferes with our free will, but is able to manage His plan despite man’s resistance to Him.

The cross is the ultimate example of this. And there are others.

Satan needed permission to afflict Job. He needed God to allow him to meddle with Job’s life. Do you think that God does not oversee what the Devil is doing against the Church His Son founded and shares His Keys with?

We are but weak and pliable clumps of clay to Him.

He may use a duration of time that seems long to us. Or He may seem to be silent or absent to us. But we know that He is alive, active and has already seen the future. He is even already in the future.

Or consider the Chief Priest when he prophesied that “…it is better that one man should die, than for a whole nation to perish”. Did the Priest understand what he was saying? Probably not. He had the perspective of the enemy. But he also spoke a profound Truth because God used his words to prophesy!

nope: "God’s Sovereignty"is NOT the principle which Infallibility rests.

sovereign authority (whether a king of an empire or the Supreme Court of the US) not equate to infallibility

God’s omniscience is the principle which Infallibility rests.

re: the cross
Peter said in Acts 2
This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

in Acts 4:
27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

Was there any chance at all: that Christ would not go to the Cross?

 

[rcwitness]

nope: "God’s Sovereignty"is NOT the principle which Infallibility rests.

Are you asserting as a fact of faith and morals that God did not, in His Sovereignty, give an authority to His Church to make Infallible declarations? Or are you saying it is what you believe, but you could be wrong?

sovereign authority (whether a king of an empire or the Supreme Court of the US) not equate to infallibility

God’s omniscience is the principle which Infallibility rests.

re: the cross
Peter said in Acts 2
This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

in Acts 4:
27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

Was there any chance at all: that Christ would not go to the Cross?

You are misunderstanding my example of the cross. I meant that God accomplishes His plan despite man’s plan. That is an example of God’s Sovereignty.

Another one is the Canon of Scripture.

 

[alwayswill]

Are you asserting as a fact of faith and morals that God did not, in His Sovereignty, give an authority to His Church to make Infallible declarations? Or are you saying it is what you believe, but you could be wrong?

You are misunderstanding my example of the cross. I meant that God accomplishes His plan despite man’s plan. That is an example of God’s Sovereignty.

Another one is the Canon of Scripture.

other examples of God’ sovereign will
Cyrus (Isaiah 45)
“For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me………I will strengthen you, though** you have not acknowledged me**,”

like Pharaoh: (Exodus 9:15)
But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.

like Pilate (John 19)
Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?”
Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above

Did God use Cyrus, Pharaoh, and Pilate to accomplish His will?
Yes, absolutely.

Were the actions of Cyrus, Pharaoh, and Pilate in accordance with the sovereign plan of God?
Yes, absolutely.

Did Cyrus, Pharaoh, and Pilate do EXACTLY wanted God wanted to be done?
YES, absolutely

Are Cyrus, Pharaoh, and Pilate worthy of any honor, glory, or praise?
NO!

Are Cyrus, Pharaoh, and Pilate infallible?
NO!

The fact that Cyrus , Pilate, and Pharaoh, did EXACTLY want God wanted does NOT mean they are infallible.
right?

The POINT is that God uses all types of people to accomplish his Sovereign Will; but that does NOT mean those kingdoms, institutions, or people are infallible!

right?

 

[rcwitness]

other examples of God’ sovereign will
Cyrus (Isaiah 45)
“For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me………I will strengthen you, though** you have not acknowledged me**,”

like Pharaoh: (Exodus 9:15)
But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.

like Pilate (John 19)
Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?”
Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above

Did God use Cyrus, Pharaoh, and Pilate to accomplish His will?
Yes, absolutely.

Were the actions of Cyrus, Pharaoh, and Pilate in accordance with the sovereign plan of God?
Yes, absolutely.

Did Cyrus, Pharaoh, and Pilate do EXACTLY wanted God wanted to be done?
YES, absolutely

Are Cyrus, Pharaoh, and Pilate worthy of any honor, glory, or praise?
NO!

Are Cyrus, Pharaoh, and Pilate infallible?
NO!

The fact that Cyrus , Pilate, and Pharaoh, did EXACTLY want God wanted does NOT mean they are infallible.
right?

The POINT is that God uses all types of people to accomplish his Sovereign Will; but that does NOT mean those kingdoms, institutions, or people are infallible!

right?

I did not imply that Cyrus, Pharoah and Pilate are infallible. Neither did I imply God’s Sovereignty is restricted to the declarations of the Magisterium. I only said it is because of God’s Sovereignty that His Church can Teach Infallibly.

It was God’s sovereignty that illuminated Peter’s mind to answer Jesus’ question, “But who do you say that I am?”

The next thing Peter did, was try to pursue Jesus not to go to the cross. The Church was not established yet, and Jesus did not ascend yet. And Peter and the others did not yet have capacity to act with full Church knowledge and authority.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Ha! No, of course not. You are repeating what has been infallibly declared inerrant!

But isn’t “repeating” also speaking?

I posed the question within the confines of the Luther quote in question to bring out the nuances of what is meant by infallibility. I’ve not read any of Dpoc41’s posts previous to this discussion, so I can only guess as to the intention as to why this particular Luther quote was posted (with a reference to a text most people could not locate and also written in a language probably most here cannot read). It appears to me it was posted to insinuate Luther claimed himself infallible and the Catholic church fallible.

The context of the document being cited doesn’t assert Luther thought himself infallible in the sense that he was receiving revelation or speaking infallibly on behalf of God (“from the chair” of Luther). In Luther’s mind, it was the Bible which was the sole infallible document, so when he quoted scripture, he was appealing to the infallibility of the Scriptures. Luther’s thoroughly believed that his “teaching” was simply repeating the doctrine found plainly in sacred scripture.

 

[rcwitness]

But isn’t “repeating” also speaking?

I posed the question within the confines of the Luther quote in question to bring out the nuances of what is meant by infallibility. I’ve not read any of Dpoc41’s posts previous to this discussion, so I can only guess as to the intention as to why this particular Luther quote was posted (with a reference to a text most people could not locate and also written in a language probably most here cannot read). It appears to me it was posted to insinuate Luther claimed himself infallible and the Catholic church fallible.

The context of the document being cited doesn’t assert Luther thought himself infallible in the sense that he was receiving revelation or speaking infallibly on behalf of God (“from the chair” of Luther). In Luther’s mind, it was the Bible which was the sole infallible document, so when he quoted scripture, he was appealing to the infallibility of the Scriptures. Luther’s thoroughly believed that his “teaching” was simply repeating the doctrine found plainly in sacred scripture.

That’s what all denominations believe. Even Calvin and several other Reformers whom Luther strongly opposed.

2nd Peter warns against twisting Scriptures. But Catholics do it all the time also. Only the Magisterium, when under lawful conditions, declares a matter of faith and morals (or Biblical interpretation) has binding authority and is free from error. All of us members (hierarchy as well) can be right, or wrong.

If we are led by faith, we will receive the Declarations of the Church as free from error. Even as we have accepted the Canon of Scripture with all of its parts.

 

[Darryl_B]

Martin Luther’s teaching’s promoted individualism. The undocumented “sola” is “sola me”. Every man for himself. When people picked this up and ran with it he had to clarify the situation. He demanded one constraint. It had to be under his jurisdiction.

 

[Darryl_B]

I notice Luther being described as “polemical”. This is being very polite. It doesn’t take much reading of his works to realize he was a little disturbed. A very angry man. It would be very easy I guess to hide behind the “that’s just the way everyone talked in those days” banner. But that is simply not the case. Maybe he exhibits a frustration of not being able to express himself in eloquence.

 

[Peter_J]

But isn’t “repeating” also speaking?

Yes. And I don’t doubt that there have been instances in which somebody infallibly repeated something that had previously been said.

But I think RCW’s point is that you don’t necessarily have to exercise infallibility in order to say something true.

P.S. Are you familiar with Scott Hahn’s phrase “a fallible list of infallible documents”?

 

[alwayswill]

Martin Luther’s teaching’s promoted individualism. The undocumented “sola” is “sola me”. Every man for himself. When people picked this up and ran with it he had to clarify the situation. He demanded one constraint. It had to be under his jurisdiction.

With Catholicism: Catholics focus on the unified teachings of their authority (their Church): while ignoring the differing beliefs of its individual members.

With Protestantism: Catholics focus on the differing beliefs of its individual members; while ignoring the unified teachings of their authority (the Scriptures)

so unless Sola Ecclesia Romanus has produced unity of belief among the **faithful **Catholics,(…and it hasn’t)

It seems to me that it is hypocritical to point to the disagreements among the faithful Sola Scriptura practicing Christians.

 

[Darryl_B]

With Catholicism: Catholics focus on the unified teachings of their authority (their Church): while ignoring the differing beliefs of its individual members.

With Protestantism: Catholics focus on the differing beliefs of its individual members; while ignoring the unified teachings of their authority (the Scriptures)

so unless Sola Ecclesia Romanus has produced unity of belief among the **faithful **Catholics,(…and it hasn’t)

It seems to me that it is hypocritical to point to the disagreements among the faithful Sola Scriptura practicing Christians.

I have never found the “hypocritical” catch-all response to produce any beneficial dialog. This is especially true when it is misappropriated as a collective. I know it does produce a satisfaction of silent status quo, but that novelty feeling produced by its application does wear thin eventually.

 

[alwayswill]

I have never found the “hypocritical” catch-all response to produce any beneficial dialog. This is especially true when it is misappropriated as a collective. I know it does produce a satisfaction of silent status quo, but that novelty feeling produced by its application does wear thin eventually.

"This is especially true when it is misappropriated as a collective. "

my apologies
going forward; I will refrain using the phrase hypocritical if you refrain from making your general statements

" Originally Posted by Darryl B View Post
Martin Luther’s teaching’s promoted individualism. The undocumented “sola” is “sola me”. Every man for himself. When people picked this up and ran with it he had to clarify the situation. He demanded one constraint. It had to be under his jurisdiction"

Here is my new response
How to you reconcile the different beliefs within Catholicism on the interpretation of Church’s teachings. I don’t mean the rejection of teachings, rather each group believing they have correctly interpreted and are following the teachings.

 

[Peter_J]

going forward; I will refrain using the phrase hypocritical if you refrain from making your general statements

" Originally Posted by Darryl B View Post
Martin Luther’s teaching’s promoted individualism. The undocumented “sola” is “sola me”.

Not to butt in, but I wasn’t even aware of “sola me”, until you quoted a post that said it.

Kind of makes me wonder whether forum-discussion brings us up more often than it brings us down. Hmmm.