EXSURGE DOMINE - Condemning The Errors Of Martin Luther

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jimmy_B

Guest
EXSURGE DOMINE
Condemning The Errors Of Martin Luther
Pope Leo X
here
Your Thoughts?
 
“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.”

EXSURGE DOMINE - Condemning The Errors Of Martin Luther / Pope Leo X
Click to expand...
 
… Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:
  1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.
  2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.
  3. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven.
  4. To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.
  5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.
  6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.
  7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: “Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life.”
  8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.
  9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God’s mercy for pardon.
  10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.
  11. By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: “Whatsoever you shall loose, etc.” Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.
  12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.
  13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.
  14. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire.
  15. Great is the error of those who approach the sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this, that they have confessed, that they are not conscious of any mortal sin, that they have sent their prayers on ahead and made preparations; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe and trust that they will attain grace, then this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.
  16. It seems to have been decided that the Church in common Council established that the laity should communicate under both species; the Bohemians who communicate under both species are not heretics, but schismatics.
  17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.
  18. Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful, and remissions of good works; and they are among the number of those things which are allowed, and not of the number of those which are advantageous.
  19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice.
  20. They are seduced who believe that indulgences are salutary and useful for the fruit of the spirit.
  21. Indulgences are necessary only for public crimes, and are properly conceded only to the harsh and impatient.
  22. For six kinds of men indulgences are neither necessary nor useful; namely, for the dead and those about to die, the infirm, those legitimately hindered, and those who have not committed crimes, and those who have committed crimes, but not public ones, and those who devote themselves to better things.
  23. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church
    .
  24. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.
  25. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.
  26. The word of Christ to Peter: “Whatsoever you shall loose on earth,” etc., is extended merely to those things bound by Peter himself.
  27. It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for morals or for good works.
  28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.
  29. A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever.
  30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.
  31. In every good work the just man sins.
  32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.
  33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
  34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.
  35. No one is certain that he is not always sinning mortally, because of the most hidden vice of pride.
  36. Free will after sin is a matter of title only; and as long as one does what is in him, one sins mortally.
  37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon.
  38. The souls in purgatory are not sure of their salvation, at least not all; nor is it proved by any arguments or by the Scriptures that they are beyond the state of meriting or of increasing in charity.
  39. The souls in purgatory sin without intermission, as long as they seek rest and abhor punishment.
  40. The souls freed from purgatory by the suffrages of the living are less happy than if they had made satisfactions by themselves.
  41. Ecclesiastical prelates and secular princes would not act badly if they destroyed all of the money bags of beggary.
EXSURGE DOMINE - Condemning The Errors Of Martin Luther / Pope Leo X
Click to expand...
 
I thought for sure that there would be an expert on Martin Luther here, who would respond to this thread… I guess not.
 
The word’s out, Jimmy. No one rises to the bait anymore.
 
Actually, O.S., this one is not as well formulated as most of the other Jimmy threads. I still am not sure what we are doing here. I keep waiting for the fight, but it never comes as there is no set up.

Jimmy, what are we looking at? IF the assertions were correct?
 
O.S.Luke said:
The word’s out, Jimmy. No one rises to the bait anymore.
Click to expand...
Hey O.S. Luke, you’re back… :extrahappy:
Now I can really start fishing again… 😃

BTW, what do you think about this thread? :rolleyes:

Peace 🙂
 
ralphinal said:
Actually, O.S., this one is not as well formulated as most of the other Jimmy threads. I still am not sure what we are doing here. I keep waiting for the fight, but it never comes as there is no set up.

Jimmy, what are we looking at? IF the assertions were correct?
Click to expand...
Wait for it…wait for it…😃
 
Maybe for starters, someone here who is a fan of Luther and the “Protestant Movement” could explain what Luther meant by -
  1. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.
  2. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.
  3. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire.
  4. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.
  5. In every good work the just man sins.
  6. A good work done very well is a venial sin.
As you can see, Luther wasn’t excommunicated for merely complaining about “Improper Indulgences”, as many here would lead us to believe. Keep in mind that the list I provided here, for the cause of Luther’s excommunication from the Catholic Church, is a partial list.

The Catholic Church isn’t the “bad-guy” here; reform within the Catholic Church was well underway prior to Luther. In a sense, the Catholic Church didn’t excommunicate Luther, he excommunicated himself. Luther, a Catholic, “jumped-ship” and basically committed “treason”. He should have remained a Catholic and worked within the system.

What would we do today, if there was the “true Christian unity” that everybody speaks of and there was only one Christian religion? What would happen, if a problem then occurred, would it the be Ok for Christians to leave and then become Muslim, for example?

What Luther did was wrong!

Oddly enough, much of what Luther complained about is going on in Protestant Churches today, now why is that? Something to think about.

Your thoughts?
 
No one is going to bite on this. You’ve already got the conclusions that you want. If anyone does defend Luther, you will simply tell them they are wrong because of [insert reason].
 
jesusluv said:
… you will simply tell them they are wrong because of [insert reason].
Click to expand...
Hello Jesusluv,

You know me too well…😃

Here’s the deal, if a person believes, as a “Protestant” that “Protestantism” is the true expression of Christianity, then he or she should be able and willing to defend “Protestantism” and to defend or explain Luther, the guy who got the “Protestant” ball rolling, right?

It is easy to defend and explain Catholicism, because Christian truth can be found in Catholicism. Catholicism it the one true expression of Christianity and Catholicism represents the Full Deposit of Faith.

All other denomination, represent only partial truths.

Luther was found to be a heretic and this was a good verdict.

As a Roman Catholic, I fear no Bible verse because the entire Bible, in one way or another, supports Catholicism. The Bible is a “Catholic Book”.

Moreover, I am not afraid to discuss any aspect of Catholicism or Catholic/Christian history.

Where are all the experts on Luther? Let’s talk.

Thank you for your post.

Peace.
 
ML wanted to be the leader of the church. he couldnt do in the CC. so he set up to build his own church. he end up with not just one but many.

Peace.
 
wisdomseeker said:
ML wanted to be the leader of the church. he couldnt do in the CC. so he set up to build his own church. he end up with not just one but many.
Click to expand...
If you knew anything about the history of the man, you would know that he did not seek out a leadership role of the church.
wisdomseeker said:
Peace.
Click to expand...
:confused:

Spreading lies about people is a sin, you know. Even when you believe you are serving a good cause by it.
 
Personally, and there is some historical basis for my conclusion, I feel that Luther was scrupulous and as such was stuck in a dark cycle of what today would be called depression. His theology reflects a certain pessimism that I do not see reflected in scriptures.

I am not saying that the Church did not need reform. Nor am I minimizing the impact that secular rulers had on the split. I am however saying that I think that Luther’s internal issues were reflected in his external writings. I do not think that it was a power play on his part. He was just trying to find the light when all he felt about himself was dark
 
Good heavens. What would the CC do, without ol’ Martin? http://bestsmileys.com/fainting/1.gif

While the doctrines of Luther still draw vigorous opposition -
a quiet Reformation is taking place…largely un-noted.

Sensum fidei is taking the field.

Yes, children will still be baptized, confirmation will continue,
couples will be married in the Church, and priests will continue to be ordained.
Anointing will still be of comfort, at the close of life.

Yet a married clergy will become the norm. The role of mediator will remain,
in the liturgy of the Eucharist - with the priest acting in behalf of the people -
as was the case in Temple sacrifice, at the time of Christ.
If some will continue to think of the priest as an 'alter Christus,’ no one will object,
because this point of doctrine will meet with no opposition.
One does not spend time and energy debating the quaint.

[It is far more interesting, humanly speaking, to engage in a brilliant defense
of Church doctrines - when encountering vigorous opposition to same.]

Apologists will continue to enjoy defending Church doctrine,
one surmises, but few will challenge them - because that which they are defending
will evoke disinterest, not rigorous exchange.

The notion: ‘a remnant will remain’ will likely offer comfort - to some who will
continue to defend the doctrines of the Church. Happily, some members, of other
Christian denominations, will likely continue to enjoy engaging in debate, as well.
[Catholicism rejects the term ‘denomination,’ as applied to herself.]

A sacramental theology will remain the official teaching of the Church, and will still be taught,
yet the reality will have changed.
The one true Church will reform - not by Magisterial fiat, but through change in practice.
[Once the parochial school system was greatly reduced in size, the opportunity to
rigorously catechize went with it.]

And while it may bring comfort - to continue to refer to those who do not accept
all of Church doctrine as ‘cafeteria Catholics’ - this is howthe Church is changing.
What is deemed “cafeteria,” in our own century, will become the norm - within that same century.

And all the councils and all the Pope’s men
will not put the Church back together again.

The blessed *sensum fidei. *

A quiet Reformation. :coffeeread:

reen12
 
reen12 said:
Good heavens. What would the CC do, without ol’ Martin? http://bestsmileys.com/fainting/1.gif

While the doctrines of Luther still draw vigorous opposition -
a quiet Reformation is taking place…largely un-noted.

Sensum fidei is taking the field.

Yes, children will still be baptized, confirmation will continue,
couples will be married in the Church, and priests will continue to be ordained.
Anointing will still be of comfort, at the close of life.

Yet a married clergy will become the norm. The role of mediator will remain,
in the liturgy of the Eucharist - with the priest acting in behalf of the people -
as was the case in Temple sacrifice, at the time of Christ.
If some will continue to think of the priest as an 'alter Christus,’ no one will object,
because this point of doctrine will meet with no opposition.
One does not spend time and energy debating the quaint.

[It is far more interesting, humanly speaking, to engage in a brilliant defense
of Church doctrines - when encountering vigorous opposition to same.]

Apologists will continue to enjoy defending Church doctrine,
one surmises, but few will challenge them - because that which they are defending
will evoke disinterest, not rigorous exchange.

The notion: ‘a remnant will remain’ will likely offer comfort - to some who will
continue to defend the doctrines of the Church. Happily, some members, of other
Christian denominations, will likely continue to enjoy engaging in debate, as well.
[Catholicism rejects the term ‘denomination,’ as applied to herself.]

A sacramental theology will remain the official teaching of the Church, and will still be taught,
yet the reality will have changed.
The one true Church will reform - not by Magisterial fiat, but through change in practice.
[Once the parochial school system was greatly reduced in size, the opportunity to
rigorously catechize went with it.]

And while it may bring comfort - to continue to refer to those who do not accept
all of Church doctrine as ‘cafeteria Catholics’ - this is howthe Church is changing.
What is deemed “cafeteria,” in our own century, will become the norm - within that same century.

And all the councils and all the Pope’s men
will not put the Church back together again.

The blessed *sensum fidei. *

A quiet Reformation. :coffeeread:

reen12
Click to expand...
Hello reen12,

You wrote-
"And all the councils and all the Pope’s men
Click to expand...
will not put the Church back together again."

I disagree, but then again, maybe I have more faith in the promise made by Jesus Christ and more faith in the Holy Spirit (Matthew 16:18-19) than some other posters, here.
Matthew 16:18,19

18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Click to expand...
Peace
 
quote: reen12
One does not spend time and energy debating the quaint.
Click to expand...
For those who enjoy intramural exchanges - within the hallways of Christendom - it’s a lovely way to spend a Sunday afternoon, in summer. 🙂

To me, such exchanges are kind of like knitting.
Tedious work.

Just call the scores in, so I know how each side is faring. http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif

reen12
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top