Did the Catholic Church authorize the murder of Martin Luther?

[benjohnson]

So, they were prosecuted as the edict was written and not treated as ‘outlaws’ subject to immediate murder by the Catholic Church or anyone else without repercussion? Thank you.

I think that much of this conjecture comes from those sympathetic to Luther and hostile toward the Catholic Church.

A strict reading of the Edict of Worms would indicate that anyone giving comfort to Luther or harboring any of Luther’s heresies would have been subject to at least immediate property confiscation.

Obviously, this didn’t happen to regularly - so we should all be thankful for this.

I’m not sure what you’re implying is conjecture, the Edict was quite real. And of course, Lutherans are not quick to being up our own atrocities - we probably owe the Anabaptists an apology or two.

 

[campeador]

A strict reading of the Edict of Worms would indicate that anyone giving comfort to Luther or harboring any of Luther’s heresies would have been subject to at least immediate property confiscation.

Obviously, this didn’t happen to regularly - so we should all be thankful for this.

I’m not sure what you’re implying is conjecture, the Edict was quite real. And of course, Lutherans are not quick to being up our own atrocities - we probably owe the Anabaptists an apology or two.

Ben, the Edict called for the arrest and punishment of Luther and his followers as heretics, and only after an exhaustive attempt at the Diet of Worms to get him to soften his position. That isn’t the same as the Catholic Chuch calling for the ‘immediate murder’ of Luther. My original intention was to point that out.

 

[benjohnson]

Ben, the Edict called for the arrest and punishment of Luther and his followers as heretics, and only after an exhaustive attempt at the Diet of Worms to get him to soften his position. That isn’t the same as the Catholic Chuch calling for the ‘immediate murder’ of Luther. My original intention was to point that out.

Let me see if I understand you:

If your viewpoint is because the church or the secular authorities typically captured heretics and usually gave them a chance to recant, then you’re correct.

However this particular Edict did allow for anyone to kill Luther as well - or at least this is how Luther understood it. After the edict, Luther never ventured outside of Saxony ever again.

That said, I’ll let the thread rest, as I’m not here to brow-beat Catholics into feeling especially guilty for things that Lutherans would have done in the same position

We Lutherans did horrid things to many heretics. If you see a Lutheran gathering firewood, it’s probably wise to run away.

 

[rinnie]

I think, as stated here, history is not simple, nor can we explain or understand why people did what they did and how the times and education at the time contributed to these decisions.

Did the Church play and part in the saying if or if not a person were a heretic of the time? Who better to know if a person were or were not a heretic? We can all I believe agree the leaders of the Church would be the one most qualified.

Is the point of this thread truly lets not attack the RCC the Church that was started by Christ, or should the question be, and fairly so, mistakes the Leaders of the Church have done in the past.

Or do you feel the Church made mistakes in saying if someone was a heretic or not? Did the Church falsly accuse some one of being a heretic? I mean really, did they have the authority and education to make a fair evaluation? And did they feel they were doing a disservice to Christ by doing so.

My question is this, if mistakes were made by leaders of the Church, what does it change? Does it make the RCC evil?

And if so, what is the difference then, to the men who have killed people of this country thinking it was in the name of God?

Do we blame our God for the misled people of Islam? If not, how do we blame him for what happened years ago?

Or should we blame human beings for the sins that have made, in the name of God. :newidea::newidea: No matter WHAT era or religion.

We all know Christ and his Church are one, The same as the God of Muhammad is the same God of Abraham, Our God.

The sins of the people of Muhammad makes their God, our God guilty of nothing. Any more then the sins of the humans in the RCC make Christ or his Church guilty. And is this not the point or answer we are truly looking for?

 

[Contarini]

No to be fair, persecution of heretics was done by the state not the Church. Lets use truth.

Yes let’s. In truth, it was a collaborative effort. The actual killing was done by the state, always. Just who handled the trial varied. And generally if the Church handled it, the defendant got a fairer trial and was more likely to escape alive. But the Church did prosecute and try people for heresy, and hand them over to the state for execution on occasion. It is therefore not true to say that the Church was not involved. Furthermore, the Church actively encouraged rulers to persecute heretics as part of their sacred duty as Christian rulers.

I know these truths are unpalatable to you, but that doesn’t make them false.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Yes let’s. In truth, it was a collaborative effort. The actual killing was done by the state, always. Just who handled the trial varied. And generally if the Church handled it, the defendant got a fairer trial and was more likely to escape alive. But the Church did prosecute and try people for heresy, and hand them over to the state for execution on occasion. It is therefore not true to say that the Church was not involved. Furthermore, the Church actively encouraged rulers to persecute heretics as part of their sacred duty as Christian rulers.

I know these truths are unpalatable to you, but that doesn’t make them false.

Edwin

To quote me, quoting someone else, a little over a year ago, when such things were being discussed:

"Kamen’s THE SPANISH INQUISITION has occasionally been suggested here as a scholarly corrective to that portion of the Black Legend, and I agree. But it is not whitewash. In chap. 9 of the 2nd edition (and a little more fully, in chap. 10 of the 1st edition), he outlines the reason why the Church “relaxed” convicted heretics to the secular authority for final punishment, when this was death. After discussing the reasons for the relaxation to the secular authority, he states ‘These’ (the secular authorities) ‘were obliged to carry out the sentence of blood which the Holy Office was forbidden by law to carry out. In all this there was no pretense that the Inquisition was not the body directly and fully responsible for the deaths that occurred’ ".

GKC

 

[rinnie]

Yes let’s. In truth, it was a collaborative effort. The actual killing was done by the state, always. Just who handled the trial varied. And generally if the Church handled it, the defendant got a fairer trial and was more likely to escape alive. But the Church did prosecute and try people for heresy, and hand them over to the state for execution on occasion. It is therefore not true to say that the Church was not involved. Furthermore, the Church actively encouraged rulers to persecute heretics as part of their sacred duty as Christian rulers.

I know these truths are unpalatable to you, but that doesn’t make them false.

Edwin

People died for heresy from the beginning of time. They called Jesus a heretic for stating he was indeed God.

I still do not agree with you that the Church itself was involved, Because as I believe I explained I see the Church as taught in the bible One with Christ.

I still believe that it was the leaders of the Church of that time that indeed were involved, and as I explained Choose to believe that they did what they felt were right with the education that had in that era.

You must remember a heretic at that time was looked upon as someone who was evil, and did evil to others.

Rather is physical or mental. You must also remember,
at the time the State was considered a state of Christians, and others were looked upon as evil, devils of some sort.

Unlike today that we feel that all men are created equal. Again education comes to play. People who see blacks as slaves even today are called very ignorant people. Usually people who had no education to truly understand the wrongs committed.

But my point is you cannot look upon what role the Leaders of the Church committed in the name of Christ and his Church, until you understand the mindset of the time.

Like in the times of slavery, heresy in that time was not questioned, nor felt wrong. That is the point I am trying to make.

People are expecting the leaders of the Church back then, to have the mindset of today. Lets get real here.

As I stated earlier are the vets guilty or is our government quilty? If they could go back in time, what would they do???

The whole problem here is when you give a human authority of any kind, you will have human mistakes.

And my HUGEST point is this, if it was the CHURCH the WORD given to the leaders from God to kill heretics, it would be the true word of God, would not change, and we would still be doing it today.

 

[Contarini]

People died for heresy from the beginning of time. They called Jesus a heretic for stating he was indeed God.

That’s not the beginning of time. And in fact the term was blasphemy, not heresy. Related, and maybe the first-century Jewish equivalent, but not exactly the same.

I still do not agree with you that the Church itself was involved, Because as I believe I explained I see the Church as taught in the bible One with Christ.

Ah, right. The Catholic “invisible Church” theology that no one will admit is an invisible-church theology

I still believe that it was the leaders of the Church of that time that indeed were involved, and as I explained Choose to believe that they did what they felt were right with the education that had in that era.

In the 12th century when the practice started, yes I think that’s fair. By the thirteenth century, let alone the sixteenth, it was seen as part of the Tradition.

You must remember a heretic at that time was looked upon as someone who was evil, and did evil to others.

Of course. In fact, that’s the point I initially made in response to the OP.

Rather is physical or mental. You must also remember,
at the time the State was considered a state of Christians, and others were looked upon as evil, devils of some sort.

Non-Christians were not necessarily regarded as evil. Attitudes varied a bit on that. But heretics were, because they had known the truth and rejected it.

Unlike today that we feel that all men are created equal.

I don’t think that has anything to do with it, really.

Again education comes to play. People who see blacks as slaves even today are called very ignorant people. Usually people who had no education to truly understand the wrongs committed.

The people who advocated the killing of heretics were very educated.

Like in the times of slavery, heresy in that time was not questioned, nor felt wrong.

If you mean that the persecution of heresy wasn’t questioned, that isn’t quite true. It was questioned–by Luther, among others. And that is one of the things Luther was condemned for, though not the main one. Erasmus also questioned it, and in the more conservative atmosphere after the Luther explosion he had to walk his criticisms back a bit. Which understandably made him annoyed with Luther et al. (One of his more hilarious statements was that in the days before Luther one could spit at theologians freely, but now one didn’t dare say anything against them–to which the Protestant Reformer Martin Bucer responded with his usual lack of humor, “I never wanted to spit at theologians.”)

People are expecting the leaders of the Church back then, to have the mindset of today.

I’m not.

As I stated earlier are the vets guilty or is our government quilty?]/QUOTE]

I missed your earlier post, but I’m sure soldiers of all nations are guilty of many things and governments of far more.

And my HUGEST point is this, if it was the CHURCH the WORD given to the leaders from God to kill heretics, it would be the true word of God, would not change, and we would still be doing it today.

That is a nice argument working backwards, but looking forwards it means that a skeptical historian like myself has to wonder about what current positions Catholics of the future may be saying the same thing

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

Luther, lets talk about Luther but lets finish the story.

Luther indeed condemned the leaders of the Church for the killing of heretics.

Then must have had a (Change of Heart) because in 1531 advocated killing heretics and blasphemers.

See what the problem here is people want to condemn the Church the RCC as not being perfect. Because if they can, it is not or could not be the ONE TRUE CHURCH started by Christ.

But God made the Church perfect, promised the fullness of the truth in it, and promised salvation through it.

But unfortunately what God DID NOT promise was to take away free will from the leaders of the RCC and make then perfect, like the word of the RCC is perfect.

But did St Paul not tell us that in his own words, A man who gave us his life for the truth, still went through this world in fear and trembling. Because he knew as we all know, we have to answer for everything we do or are a part of. He knew none of them were perfect either.

He even went as far to say that WE as Catholic’s will be have a harder trial before God then those who are not, because we were given the fullness of the truth.

God picked 12 Apostles and one of them were a devil. Why? I am sure if you could answer that question, you could answer just about any.

But as stated Luther, the Pope, Bishops, etc do not have the mind of God, ONLY when they preach and teach in his name.

When it comes to human decisions you will find human mistakes.

Was the killing of heretics wrong? Of course it was, I don’t believe anyone here would disagree.

But would any of us disagree with it, if we were in that time, with the knowledge we have today.

And I disagree with you Edwin with education of that era, with education hopefully comes wisdom, sometimes wisdom without education. I should have used the word wisdom possibly instead of education of that time. But true wisdom comes from God.
,
We learned that in the Mysteries of the Rosary, How the lost Child in the temple. Old Scholars of the time were teaching Jesus the scriptures, they had knowledge of them all. But as Jesus taught them as a child, education comes from a book, true wisdom comes from God. They read the scriptures to Jesus a Child. but a child taught them what they were reading.

 

[rinnie]

To quote me, quoting someone else, a little over a year ago, when such things were being discussed:

"Kamen’s THE SPANISH INQUISITION has occasionally been suggested here as a scholarly corrective to that portion of the Black Legend, and I agree. But it is not whitewash. In chap. 9 of the 2nd edition (and a little more fully, in chap. 10 of the 1st edition), he outlines the reason why the Church “relaxed” convicted heretics to the secular authority for final punishment, when this was death. After discussing the reasons for the relaxation to the secular authority, he states ‘These’ (the secular authorities) ‘were obliged to carry out the sentence of blood which the Holy Office was forbidden by law to carry out. In all this there was no pretense that the Inquisition was not the body directly and fully responsible for the deaths that occurred’ ".

GKC

See I think this in a large way pretty much wraps up all in a unfortunately ugly package what I am trying to say. Read carefully what is said, these authorities were obliged to carry out the sentence of blood the Holy Office was forbidden by law to carry out!

Why was the Holy Office forbidden by law to carry this out? Simple, because it was not the word of God. If it was by the power of the Holy Spirit it would have been done by the RCC.

But as shown the Human leaders made these choices, not the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said he was God and was put to death. Now why did Jesus truly die, Simple, so we could live. He took away our sin. But from the outside if he was God he would have never died.

Back to education and wisdom, true wisdom shows us as Catholic’s why Jesus died, Education shows it to many disbelievers and they don’t get it.

Education or shall I say history shows the RCC was who is accused of killing heretics.

True wisdom and education shows RC leaders are who are responsible, if again they are, I truly believe they did more to save people then kill heretics, but that’s not the point here.

The question is this, was it ever a teaching of the RCC that we should kill heretic’s? The answer is NO. As I stated if it was then it would be now.

Next question does that mean the RCC leaders did not play their part in the killing of heretics? The honest question would be some for the right reasons, some for the wrong reasons, But as we know right reasons and wrong reasons still do not make a wrong right.

But lets get the question right, lets be honest and say did Pope, Bishops, leaders of the RCC make bad decisions and let God down. Then you will have millions of responses, and rightly so.

My answer would be Yes, BEGINNING with Judas.

And don’t think St Peter John, Paul…did not make many mistakes and have sins also.

That is the big misunderstanding of the RCC even today. Although the Church is perfect in all truths, it is not always seen that way because of the sins of the leaders of it.

And now I am kinda repeating myself again so I promise I will quit, Before someone gets angry at me and says, WE GET IT!

 

[GKC]

See I think this in a large way pretty much wraps up all in a unfortunately ugly package what I am trying to say. Read carefully what is said, these authorities were obliged to carry out the sentence of blood the Holy Office was forbidden by law to carry out!

Why was the Holy Office forbidden by law to carry this out? Simple, because it was not the word of God. If it was by the power of the Holy Spirit it would have been done by the RCC.

But as shown the Human leaders made these choices, not the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said he was God and was put to death. Now why did Jesus truly die, Simple, so we could live. He took away our sin. But from the outside if he was God he would have never died.

Back to education and wisdom, true wisdom shows us as Catholic’s why Jesus died, Education shows it to many disbelievers and they don’t get it.

Education or shall I say history shows the RCC was who is accused of killing heretics.

True wisdom and education shows RC leaders are who are responsible, if again they are, I truly believe they did more to save people then kill heretics, but that’s not the point here.

The question is this, was it ever a teaching of the RCC that we should kill heretic’s? The answer is NO. As I stated if it was then it would be now.

Next question does that mean the RCC leaders did not play their part in the killing of heretics? The honest question would be some for the right reasons, some for the wrong reasons, But as we know right reasons and wrong reasons still do not make a wrong right.

But lets get the question right, lets be honest and say did Pope, Bishops, leaders of the RCC make bad decisions and let God down. Then you will have millions of responses, and rightly so.

My answer would be Yes, BEGINNING with Judas.

And don’t think St Peter John, Paul…did not make many mistakes and have sins also.

That is the big misunderstanding of the RCC even today. Although the Church is perfect in all truths, it is not always seen that way because of the sins of the leaders of it.

And now I am kinda repeating myself again so I promise I will quit, Before someone gets angry at me and says, WE GET IT!

Read over Peter’s chaps 1 and 2, to see how the division of the labor developed. What Kamen is saying is that the division of responsibility was not something that the Church objected to. The Inquisition was not the body which actually killed. It was the body which delivered those judged guilty, to be killed. With full approval of the Holy Office. “…the body directly and fully responsible for the deaths that occurred.”

GKC

 

[rinnie]

Read over Peter’s chaps 1 and 2, to see how the division of the labor developed. What Kamen is saying is that the division of responsibility was not something that the Church objected to. The Inquisition was not the body which actually killed. It was the body which delivered those judged guilty, to be killed. With full approval of the Holy Office. “…the body directly and fully responsible for the deaths that occurred.”

GKC

I totally get this GKC, and do not disagree with it. But what I am saying is approval of the Holy Office, is not EX CATHEDRA.

 

[GKC]

I totally get this GKC, and do not disagree with it. But what I am saying is approval of the Holy Office, is not EX CATHEDRA.

No, I understand that. If by approval you mean that the decision, where it was made, to relax a convicted heretic to the secular arm was not infallibly correct, in any given, or even in all instances. But it also means that the existence of the system, and the evolved division of labors (the Church examines, tries, convicts, in cases where that was done, passes judgement, and delivers those convicted to the authorities for execution, is not ex cathedra, either, but it was the system for a number of centuries. And the Church agreed with it, as an institution.

GKC

 

[rinnie]

No, I understand that. If by approval you mean that the decision, where it was made, to relax a convicted heretic to the secular arm was not infallibly correct, in any given, or even in all instances. But it also means that the existence of the system, and the evolved division of labors (the Church examines, tries, convicts, in cases where that was done, passes judgement, and delivers those convicted to the authorities for execution, is not ex cathedra, either, but it was the system for a number of centuries. And the Church agreed with it, as an institution.

GKC

Again at the risk of repeating myself, I have to disagree with you, simply because of your definition of the Church and mine.

Let me ask you this in another way. Before St Paul was blinded by God, he was killing Christians. Now St Paul was a Pharisee, had much education, did he not?

Now this sect demanded strict observance of Law and Tradition, do you not agree?

The law stated that a man hung upon a stake was accused of God. Deut 21:22-23 Gal 3:13. Now remember a highly educated Man here.

Saul truly believed he was doing God’s will. Now true wisdom comes from God, God blinded Saul and led him to the truth.

Now do you blame Saul, or do you blame the Sect he belonged to for this killing? Or my real question do you blame God the same God the Jewish God, which is the Christian God for this sin?

Who is at the core here?

 

[GKC]

Again at the risk of repeating myself, I have to disagree with you, simply because of your definition of the Church and mine.

Let me ask you this in another way. Before St Paul was blinded by God, he was killing Christians. Now St Paul was a Pharisee, had much education, did he not?

Now this sect demanded strict observance of Law and Tradition, do you not agree?

The law stated that a man hung upon a stake was accused of God. Deut 21:22-23 Gal 3:13. Now remember a highly educated Man here.

Saul truly believed he was doing God’s will. Now true wisdom comes from God, God blinded Saul and led him to the truth.

Now do you blame Saul, or do you blame the Sect he belonged to for this killing? Or my real question do you blame God the same God the Jewish God, which is the Christian God for this sin?

Who is at the core here?

So, you would make the Church, in this situation, analogous to the Pharisees?

GKC

 

[rinnie]

So, you would make the Church, in this situation, analogous to the Pharisees?

GKC

No, the leaders. Just as I do not believe as St Paul believed at that time that Christians were to be persecuted (because in his mind, he believed it was indeed the word of God, it was scripture).

I believe that human leaders can make bad decisions in the name of God. But just because they claim it is in the name of God, and they believe it is in the name of God, does not make it so.

I don’t believe the RCC which as I stated and Jesus taught us he and his Church are one, was any more guilty then the God of St. Paul was guilty.

 

[rinnie]

But just wondering what is your opinion of St Paul?

 

[GKC]

No, the leaders. Just as I do not believe as St Paul believed at that time that Christians were to be persecuted (because in his mind, he believed it was indeed the word of God, it was scripture).

I believe that human leaders can make bad decisions in the name of God. But just because they claim it is in the name of God, and they believe it is in the name of God, does not make it so.

I don’t believe the RCC which as I stated and Jesus taught us he and his Church are one, was any more guilty then the God of St. Paul was guilty.

I understand your point. Mine is that, historically, it is incorrect (and I am not saying you are doing so) to try to make a distinction between the role of the visible institutional Church and that of the visible, institutional secular authority, in the process of dealing with heretics, including executing them. They were acting, together, toward one end. One may, as Contarini said, raise the idea of the invisible Church, but the visible one acted in concert with the authorities, in that time in history.

GKC,

 

[GKC]

But just wondering what is your opinion of St Paul?

St. Paul was not in question. Saul was.

GKC

 

[rinnie]

St. Paul was not in question. Saul was.

GKC

same person.