Exsurge Domine

[hn160]

Not even gonna touch 33. I need more information.

Did the pope take it to mean that the state did not have the authority or that the Church should not allow the state to do it?

After his excommunication by the pope, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V condemn Luther as an outlaw. All German princes were commanded to capture and kill Luther. The Elector Frederick III of Saxony hid Luther at the Wartburg Castle and saved his life.

 

[hn160]

The Council in question was the Council of Florence (or Basel) in 1438.

According to the New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship, the Bohemians in question were using both in giving infants communion, and that communication by all baptised in both species were a law of God. That work notes that they were the only group teaching this and no other Reformed Church did, even though Trent cited it. (page 253) The group in question are called Bohemian Utraquists.

This group seems to be connected to Hus. Eventually, the group merged with Lutherans.

Does this help with 16? It seems like the issue actually had nothing to do with Luther.

The followers of Jan Hus never merged with the Lutherans, they became the Unitas Fratrum or the Moravian Church although they found refuge on the land of the Lutheran Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf in Saxony after being persecuted out of Moravia. Count Zinzendorf later became a leader of the Moravians.

 

[guanophore]

Re 33
“And he said to his disciples: It is impossible that scandals should not come: but woe to him through whom they come. It were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones.”

Well if being cast into the sea with a millstone around one’s neck does not offend against the Spirit for the scandal wrought by heresy, then presumably neither does being burnt for it.
People today tend to be confused about what is and is not important. We would not think twice about the justice of dropping bombs if necessary to burn our enemies to stop them from waging a war to the death against us, so why would we think it improper to burn a heretic to death, especially one who would not desist even under the threat of being burnt to death? The heretic brings scandals that endanger the salvation of many souls and this is worse that merely killing people.
Of course moderns don’t really believe this any more. Everyone is entitled to hold whatever opinion they wish, and while others may oppose them, this opposition may not overstep the bounds of politeness. We must be tolerant of what others say. Yet if we really believe that what others say may mislead others to the point that the misled do not gain eternal salvation, then we should reserve the right to burn the misleaders.

I normally tell someone new “welcome to CAF”, but I am not sure how welcome such sentiment is here. This forum is to discuss our differences and religious beliefs. Burning people at the stake who disagree with you is not very conducive to that end.

In the olden days, there was a conflation of church and state, so that a “heretic” was also a traitor, or a subverter from a social and political point of view. We no longer suffer such a conflation, and since we still (though less and less) have freedom of religion, we cannot be compelled to embrace heresies on pain of death. Therefore, it is not necessary to “burn the misleaders.”

You might feel quite differently about this, if you were on the receiving end of the consequence, don’t you think?

 

[KathleenGee]

I have read a good background on Luther today…that also made me think he entered the wrong monastery…that fed on his scruples…

Luther defended the Biblical and Catholic teaching of man’s bondage to sin…and had basic agreement with St. Thomas Aquinas that a believer could have certitude in salvation…and that Luther in contrast to his times, had a more personal faith in Christ and the Holy Spirit…

In those times, few bishops were actually overseeing their own dioceses, but from afar, and that the local clergy had little education. Mass was said without homilies. So the people were in great hunger about hearing the Word of God explained. There were all sorts of pilgrimages, cults of saints that became superstitious, and a detached view of the Mass devoid of its grace and power to transform…

What angered Luther was the practice of indulgences…and the person participating not using this without any repentance…thus buying one’s way into heaven.

Pope Leo X had no interest in theology, and ignored Luther’s appeal to meet with him. When Luther arrived in Rome, he instead was read a letter written by the Pope’s theologian calling Luther all sorts of names. He had another meeting with Cardinal Cajetan that ended in deadlock, but upon leaving…I think now of Luther’s scruples…tit for tat…he left questioning papal authority.

The Exsurge Domine by Pope Leo X did not excommunicate Luther; however, it condemned all his 41 propositions. But then at this same time, Luther began to call Pope Leo X the anti-Christ, and Luther then came out as a formidable propagandist addressing the German nation through 3 manifestos.

So it looks like from this, it was Luther who ‘excommunicated’ Pope Leo X from Christ, although at that time the Church did not excommunicate Luther.

These manifestos called for an end to priestly celibacy, Masses for the dead, to severely limit papal, abolish the pope’s temporal power, and become a type of spiritual overseer of Christiandom, as well as one’s focus draw away from universalism to have instead individual councils elected by local believers, this form of church governance also tested in earliest Christian times, but the Jewish model enduring with a bishop and supporting presbyters.

Another manifesto…Babylonian Captivity…created a new concept of the nature of the Church and sacraments, denying apostolic succession…no priesthood, only baptism and the Eucharist.

Six months later, Luther burned Pope Leo X’s Exsurge as well as Canon Law. The Exsurge’s main errors were with indulgences and penance…but Erasmus, a humanist, thought the denial of free will by Luther as the main issue.

Luther, from what I am understanding here, did not acknowledge the act of true repentance when utilizing the grace of indulgences. Pope Leo X’s Exsurge did not define which theses were which – heretical or representative of true reform.

This lack of clarity in defining Luther’s errors were not addressed until the Council of Trent…

 

[Contarini]

I think many underestimate the severe father complex from which Luther suffered, the trauma of his childhood treatment

My view is exactly the opposite. I think that many folks who aren’t specialists in the period are way too enamored of Erik Erikson’s Freudian interpretation, which you are reproducing here.

It’s not at all clear to me that Luther’s parents were particularly harsh by the standards of the culture, and anyway the specific beating that people refer to most often was administered by Luther’s mother, not his father. Hans Luther sounds like a fairly typical conscientious early-16th-century rising-lower-middle-class European father to me.

Edwin

 

[guanophore]

My view is exactly the opposite. I think that many folks who aren’t specialists in the period are way too enamored of Erik Erikson’s Freudian interpretation, which you are reproducing here.

It’s not at all clear to me that Luther’s parents were particularly harsh by the standards of the culture, and anyway the specific beating that people refer to most often was administered by Luther’s mother, not his father. Hans Luther sounds like a fairly typical conscientious early-16th-century rising-lower-middle-class European father to me.

Edwin

Indeed I think you are right, but that does not mean the trauma was less influential. They did not know that beatings and intolerant child rearing practices contributed the the mental illnesses from which he suffered. They also did not know that children were not little adults. They were unaware of the developmental differences.

Besides, Erikson’s interpretation was quite divergent from that of Freud, so that they contradict one another.

In the light of modern psychological and biological understandings of child development, it is easy to see that Luther projected his inability to please his father onto God, and was convinced the first half of his life that he had to DO something to be acceptable to God. He thought that being human was hateful to God. Even his confessors were puzzled by his complex.

 

[Contarini]

Indeed I think you are right, but that does not mean the trauma was less influential. They did not know that beatings and intolerant child rearing practices contributed the the mental illnesses from which he suffered.

But if this was common, then how does it explain Luther specifically?

They also did not know that children were not little adults.

That’s Philippe Aries’ view, and often challenged these days. They definitely did have some idea of developmental differences (I remember reading an account of this in grad school but don’t remember the precise source–it might have been Strauss’ Luther’s House of Learning, but I think not), though of course in ways differing from ours, and certainly with a lot more expectation that children would behave like adults. The main difference was that children were less rational and thus (so it was thought) had to be controlled by fear, which accounts for a lot of the harshness (the doctrine of original sin also no doubt played a role).

Besides, Erikson’s interpretation was quite divergent from that of Freud, so that they contradict one another.

Touche. I’m revealing my ignorance of psychological thought here!

In the light of modern psychological and biological understandings of child development, it is easy to see that Luther projected his inability to please his father onto God, and was convinced the first half of his life that he had to DO something to be acceptable to God. He thought that being human was hateful to God. Even his confessors were puzzled by his complex.

Staupitz was, yes. Certainly Luther’s personality led him to react differently from many others. But that’s precisely why I hesitate to assume that it’s because of his upbringing, unless it can be shown that his upbringing really was unusual. It seems at least as likely that Luther was a particularly sensitive person who responded to both his upbringing and his theological context in a fairly unusual way (though obviously the ideas that came out of this found a great deal of resonance with his contemporaries).

I still think that diagnosing someone long dead is a highly risky business, and not much should be built on it.

Edwin

 

[KathleenGee]

I am spending what little spare time I have on studying church history.

When I study Luther’s position to reject apostolic faith being handed down by the Apostles through the Holy Spirit and a well defined hierarchy by 100 AD, to deny that would be most destructive, and it was Luther who began the dismantling of Christianity.

Where is the unified block of Christianity today in our own country? Didn’t Luther remark that an angel appeared to him telling him not to go through with this split?

I note here in this text recommended by my pastor, that the general reform of the Church would have happened if the papacy was seized itself. Unimpeachable Catholic authorities were ‘the first to admit this’. The Church failed to reform itself. And it required another council to do this, the Council of Trent, — after the event.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t recall this, although Luther said a lot of rhetorical, hyperbolic things. He did describe Satan appearing to him and pointing out the unbiblical nature of much of Luther’s Catholic belief. Catholic polemicists seized on this to say that Luther got his ideas from Satan, but Luther saw temptation primarily as a challenge to faith, so from his perspective Satan would reproach you with beliefs you held that were unfounded in the Word. This may or may not be an orthodox way to think about Satan, but it was Luther’s way.

If Luther did say that an angel told him he was wrong, he would probably have been th inking of Paul’s statement in Galatians that even if an angel from heaven revealed another Gospel the angel would be accursed.

I note here in this text recommended by my pastor, that the general reform of the Church would have happened if the papacy was seized itself. Unimpeachable Catholic authorities were ‘the first to admit this’. The Church failed to reform itself. And it required another council to do this, the Council of Trent, — after the event.

 

[KathleenGee]

I’ll share a passage here from ‘A Concise History of the Catholic Church’, by Thomas Bokenkotter on the chapter entitled, ‘The Unmaking of Christendom’, ‘Luther Splits Christendom’…in regards to Luther’s personality issues.

A Sepulcian priest told me one time, his order called to train seminarians for the priesthood, that scruples is the first step into insanity. Luther did preach the most intense anti-Semitism in Christianity…

I see Luther more as a person who lost the belief in God’s love. His personality is the type that makes forgiveness difficult to achieve. I would imagine how hard it would be to forgive corrupt clerics…

“This monk, Martin Luther, was born in 1843 in Eisleben, Germany, the son of Hans and Margarete Ludher, who were of Thuringian peasant stock. Brought up in an atmosphere of traditional religious practice, he was given schooling of the kind customary at that time. He was intensively drilled in Latin-giving him a strong linguistic foundation on which he built his later acquaintance with Hebrew and Greek. Enrolling in Erfurt, the largest German university of the day, where Aristotle still reigned supreme, he was awarded the master of arts degree in 1505.”

“His decision to enter a monastery a few months later was not inconsistent with his deeply introspective and melancholy disposition, but the circumstances suggest that it may have been less than wholehearted. It was a decision made in a moment of panic during a terrible thunderstorm after he was thrown to the ground by a bolt of lightning. The monastery he chose was the strictest religious house at Erfurt, and upon his entry in 1505 the young novice monk found himself bound to a severe daily regimen of prayer, meditation, study, frequent fasting, and silence. All this no doubt reinforced his innate tendency toward introspection and brooding. There is little doubt that he performed his duties with extreme seriousness, for he found favor with his superiors, and after only 19 months, he was ordained a priest, on April 4, 1507. He was then chosen to continue his theological studies.”

"Up to this point Luther seemed to have enjoyed a good measure of spiritual peace–that sense of closeness to God that a religious novice often feels in the first years of his new way of life. But as he continued with his study of theology, he fell prey to moods of general depression; he suffered terrible trials and anguish of spirit, with sudden spasms of terror and despair gripping his heart, a torment so shattering, he said, that had it lasted even the tenth part of an hour, his bones would have crumbled into ashes. Deeply conscious of his sinfulness and guilt, he felt that at any moment he might be struck down by the living God and cast into hell. Craving certainty, he confessed frequently, even daily, fasted, and prayed; but he found little relief. And then in extremes of his agony he even cried out his hatred of God, which in turn exacerbated his feelings of guilt. “For I hoped I might find peace of conscience with fasts, prayers, vigils, with which I miserably afflicted my body, but the more I sweated it out like this, the less peace and tranquility I knew,’ he wrote.”

“His own later interpretation of his trials was that they were caused by the defective nominalist theology he was trained in. According to this theology he was supposed to merit salvation by his god works, whereas his own experience told him that he was completely impotent to do good. His so-called good works, he felt, were tainted by an all-pervading egotism. Above all, he could not find it in his power to rise to the love of God. How could one love a God who punishes sinners, who stood before him as an avenging God as the phrase ‘the justice of God’ (Rm. 1:17) often reminded him?”…

How many Catholics in those days, however, did experience the love of Christ, who were the Catholic saints whose faith shone in those times prior to the Reformation?

 

[Stepson]

I still think that diagnosing someone long dead is a highly risky business, and not much should be built on it.

Edwin

That is something that I always understood as well. Sometimes you can see this on news specials when the reporter asks a Psychologist/Psychiatrist to render a diagnose of a person. The mental health specialist will tell you that it is unethical to render a diagnoses without interviewing the patient first hand.

That does not mean you cannot say that the person is exhibiting classic signs/symptoms of a particular affliction, but they will not say that this is what the person suffers/suffered from.

Side note, if the improper treatment of children (which I agree was the norm for that period) is a cause and effect of certain mental disabilities, why wasn’t there a heck of a lot more of Luther’s?

 

[Contarini]

That is something that I always understood as well. Sometimes you can see this on news specials when the reporter asks a Psychologist/Psychiatrist to render a diagnose of a person. The mental health specialist will tell you that it is unethical to render a diagnoses without interviewing the patient first hand.

That does not mean you cannot say that the person is exhibiting classic signs/symptoms of a particular affliction, but they will not say that this is what the person suffers/suffered from.

Side note, if the improper treatment of children (which I agree was the norm for that period) is a cause and effect of certain mental disabilities, why wasn’t there a heck of a lot more of Luther’s?

Well, Jean Delumeau argued that the entire period from 1300-1700 was characterized by an exaggerated sense of sin, guilt, and fear. This is controversial, though, as all big generalizations are among scholars. And even if true, you have to ask if the way children were treated was the cause or the result of this–and how any of it differed from what prevailed earlier in the Middle Ages or in the ancient world.

Edwin

 

[KathleenGee]

I would think such a mindset would affect childrearing…But Luther himself described his own symptoms and torments…did other monks experience the same?

People can have excess in thinking…but not act on it. He acted on his, and Luther fractured Christianity, not the fruit of the Holy Spirit. His own spiritual history seemed devoid of the Holy Spirit…

The Franciscans have pretty much defined the disposition of Italian Catholics, I finding them today wholesome, happy, the most devout in the South East…where the Franciscans/Capuchins thrive.

 

[KathleenGee]

The evil one usually comes to mix up truth with lie…

It looks like Luther was drawing on an unhealthy spirituality in his monastery…but that doesn’t mean to go as far as he did, understandable considering how he was treated…what does one expect from corruption??

Vatican II worked on religious congregations to get rid of any unhealthy management issues; there was also a movement to remove the presence of unhealthy devotions in public places of worship, parishes, religious congregations.

 

[Contarini]

The evil one usually comes to mix up truth with lie…

It looks like Luther was drawing on an unhealthy spirituality in his monastery…but that doesn’t mean to go as far as he did, understandable considering how he was treated…what does one expect from corruption??

How was his convent (technically not a monastery, because he was a friar) unhealthy? I don’t see a lot of ground for that either. No doubt the hothouse spirituality of late medieval “observant” religious life intensified some of his problems, but I’m not sure that I’d write it off as “unhealthy.” Staupitz, while more radically Augustinian (i.e., a lot closer to what we’d call “Calvinism”) than most of us would probably be comfortable with, seems to have been a sane and balanced person, and Luther credited him and other confessors with good advice.

I don’t think there is one factor that explains Luther. He was a weird, wild, wacky religious genius with a lot of issues. And he lived in a time when there were a lot of forces moving toward religious change–not that he didn’t put his own very personal stamp on the kind of change that happened.

Edwin

 

[guanophore]

That is something that I always understood as well. Sometimes you can see this on news specials when the reporter asks a Psychologist/Psychiatrist to render a diagnose of a person. The mental health specialist will tell you that it is unethical to render a diagnoses without interviewing the patient first hand.

That does not mean you cannot say that the person is exhibiting classic signs/symptoms of a particular affliction, but they will not say that this is what the person suffers/suffered from.

This is quite true. All we can do when it comes to historical figures is speculate, based upon the available evidence.

Side note, if the improper treatment of children (which I agree was the norm for that period) is a cause and effect of certain mental disabilities, why wasn’t there a heck of a lot more of Luther’s?

Oh, I believe there was! Luther, though, embodied a certain set of personality characteristics, abiities, and interests that constellated to create an attitude and personality that was like a small stone toppling the avalanche of centuries of clerical abuses, ignorance, supersitition, etc. Once the avalanche got going, he had no control of it either. If it had not been Luther, it would have been someone else. The seeds of rebellion against clerical authority were already running rampant from the work of Wycliffe and Tyndale.

Calvin and Zwingli came to their views independently of Luther, so the time and climate in Europe was definitely ripe for the challenge.

Interestingly, it was the CC herself that fomented this rebellion through the institution of the university system. Prior to that, most in depth scholarship of the Scripture was confined to the rich and powerful, or the monasteries. Once the Church established centers of learning outside political and ecclesial control, the students began reaching their own conclusions from reading, inseparation from the Teaching of the Apostles. Such is the case with the Anabaptists, who came to their beliefs in an academic environment.

 

[KathleenGee]

Psychotherapy is a discipline, or more it seems to me at present time, than in recent history. I don’t think you can use it, however, to past historical figures when looking at great historical events…I mean, people can share the same opinions, convictions, educational background, but not have the effect on his times as he did. So it is fair to me to further reflect on the kind of character he was that brought about such a change in Christianity.

The text I used also verified that the Reformation was in motion, in spite of the Council of Florence. So many in Germany abandoned the Catholic hierarchy, and I wonder if other military, political and economic factors also played into this.

I didn’t have time today to further study Catholic movements leading up to the Reformation. I was wanting to draw on saints and practices that showed the Catholic faith’s trust in God’s mercy and the freely given grace of faith.

There were some Catholic lay organizations and priests who worked very hard to amend any corruption by those in power in the church, but drawing on personal zeal, fidelity to the Gospel, greater personal sanctification within Germany. But lay movements do not have the significance that celibate orders and congregations do for a number of reasons, basically encountering alot of blocks, drawbacks, that drain the original impetus and patience of those leading them.

And the text’s reference to a less than balanced monastic theology in Luther’s congregation made me think that there must be others that were not quite like that of his choice…that may be would have been more of a help to him and his own personal spiritual life.

 

[Contarini]

And the text’s reference to a less than balanced monastic theology in Luther’s congregation made me think that there must be others that were not quite like that of his choice…that may be would have been more of a help to him and his own personal spiritual life.

What text are you consulting? Are you talking about nominalist philosophy/theology? That wasn’t peculiar to Luther’s congregation.

Edwin

 

[KathleenGee]

I am referring to my text, given me by my pastor, that refers to the theology of Luther’s monastery that was austere. It might not had been the right fit.

I would think other monasteries would have different charisms. I also was reading about the faith of German pastors and lay movements to correct the corruption of the church. I was reading about some German pastors who did their utmost to develop very solid faith and practices, and recognize the apostolic faith working in them, coming across as balanced spirituality in those days.

Also in monasteries, they have had those especially called to discern spirits, personality, and right fit. With the excess disciplines in the monastery he entered, there could have been management issues…I say that from what I have experienced and observed.

All monasteries not only reflect a certain theology, but also a certain style of management. Luther excelled as a novice and became a priest for his attentiveness to the rule, but ordination isn’t the sign either some one is called to that charism.

I see his grievances sincere, but he came to totally ignore the prerequisite of indulgences, that one must do penance and grow closer to God. That is a very serious neglect of the integrity of practice behind indulgences…which we still have, and of which I have participated in…it is all about becoming closer to God.

 

[Stepson]

This is quite true. All we can do when it comes to historical figures is speculate, based upon the available evidence.

Which boils down to your or my opinion. Also your opinion which is based on “evidence.” I think the word evidence here is too strong of a word to use. For anything presented on this subject is highly subjective.

Interestingly, it was the CC herself that fomented this rebellion through the institution of the university system. Prior to that, most in depth scholarship of the Scripture was confined to the rich and powerful, or the monasteries. Once the Church established centers of learning outside political and ecclesial control, the students began reaching their own conclusions from reading, inseparation from the Teaching of the Apostles. Such is the case with the Anabaptists, who came to their beliefs in an academic environment.

So can we all just agree that this whole mess has been the Baptist’s fault ? Alright then everyone over to my house for a reconciliation party!