Follow up on SS

[joe371]

Per Crucem;11864525]And any Presbyterian, Baptist, or Methodist (Ok…I’m stretching it with that one) church can claim the same. They can excommunicate and declare someone a heretic. (Like we said to the Pope ). They just don’t do it with the blah blah we’re the one true church fanfare. We don’t claim the church is without authority. We just don’t feel the need to claim an infallible authority.

You don’t like the blah, blah doctrine. LOL… Infallibility simple means guaranteed doctrinal truth, thanks to God alone. As you know it does not mean that the bishops (Ecumenical Councils) and whoever is occupying the Petrine office - are infallible. The are fallible sinners who need to go to confession just like anyone else i.e. they are all fallible sinners, and therefore God get’s all the credit for imparting knowable truth about certain doctrines, and he did this by using fallible people such as the apostles and their successors e.g. Timothy and Titus, and their successors in perpetuity. God preserves truth by ensuring that each generation passes on to the next generation of leaders, the same that has always been taught during the apostolic age. We see 4 generations of apostolic succession in the NT ; it’s very scriptural.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

As a 20 year Law Enforcement veteran, I have to say that not once did I see a Criminal Statute enforced without Law Enforcement and the Judicial System. The final authority is the court, who interprets the law and how it is to be applied to each case.

In like manner, the Church is the authority set out by Christ to interpret the Scriptures and how they are to be applied.

Great analogy, Isaiah. Throw in the fact that the “court” in this case (the Church) was established by Divine calling and is protected by Divine promise from error in the cases of faith & morals when purposefully promulgated to the entire Church, and the analogy becomes near-perfect!

If anything is final it is Christ, who will be the final judge.

:yup:

 

[FathersKnowBest]

We have the correct interpretation of course. When something new pops up we do as scripture says and take it to the church.

But what do you do when you disagree with the Church’s ruling?

That is precisely what happened in the early 1500s. There was a difference of opinion on the Church’s interpretation of scripture. The Church ruled that Martin Luther et al was wrong.

You (speaking in only a broad sense) disputed this ruling and instead started a new church.

How can you (again speaking broadly) possibly claim that this NEW church has authority? You rebelled against the Church, and her ruling, even though Christ told us:
Mt 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

That is the synod.

So, if I disagree, I just start my own synod, and all is good, right?
:sad_yes:

 

[FathersKnowBest]

And any Presbyterian, Baptist, or Methodist (Ok…I’m stretching it with that one) church can claim the same. They can excommunicate and declare someone a heretic. (Like we said to the Pope ). They just don’t do it with the blah blah we’re the one true church fanfare.

Interesting way to describe the promises of Christ.

 

[SteveVH]

All SS does is set scripture as the final norm for doctrine. So, in that sense, scripture is “sola”, alone, the final norm. No other norm is equal to it, and instead other norms are normed by it.
Jon

Hi, Jon.

Well, as you know, we would say that Scripture and Tradition are equal as far as a norm is concerned and neither of them are worth much without an authentic and authoritative interpreter, i.e. the magisterium. We know for certain that not everything taught in the apostolic period is contained in the Scriptures, therefore the Scriptures cannot be the final norm for dogma and doctrine and the life of the Church in general.

While references to the seven sacraments can certainly be shown in the New Testament, most are not obvious. The liturgy of the Mass is non-existent in the Scriptures, or at least extremely obscure, yet it was practiced from the beginning. The Church has prayed for the dead since the beginning, yet there is only one reference that I know of and most Protestants don’t even accept that book as Scripture.

Paul taught in the synagogue continually for 30 days. Yet not a word of what he taught in those 30 days is recorded in writing. Jesus revealed the entire Scriptures, in light of himself, to the disciples on the road to Emmaus. Yet not a word of what he said was written down. Are we to assume that what was taught by Paul and by Jesus himself was of no great importance? Of course not.

My point is that the Church, and the truth it possessed, preceded the Bible, ergo the Bible cannot be the final norm. It was canonized for use in the liturgy, not as an end-all instruction for Christianity. It is understandable that those left with only the Bible and no other authority would hold it as their final norm, but that is not the case for Catholics. We would retain the fullness of truth even if every Bible in the world was destroyed.

Blessings.

Steve

 

[Nicea325]

Hi, Jon.

Well, as you know, we would say that Scripture and Tradition are equal as far as a norm is concerned and neither of them are worth much without an authentic and authoritative interpreter, i.e. the magisterium. We know for certain that not everything taught in the apostolic period is contained in the Scriptures, therefore the Scriptures cannot be the final norm for dogma and doctrine and the life of the Church in general.

While references to the seven sacraments can certainly be shown in the New Testament, most are not obvious. The liturgy of the Mass is non-existent in the Scriptures, or at least extremely obscure, yet it was practiced from the beginning. The Church has prayed for the dead since the beginning, yet there is only one reference that I know of and most Protestants don’t even accept that book as Scripture.

Paul taught in the synagogue continually for 30 days. Yet not a word of what he taught in those 30 days is recorded in writing. Jesus revealed the entire Scriptures, in light of himself, to the disciples on the road to Emmaus. Yet not a word of what he said was written down. Are we to assume that what was taught by Paul and by Jesus himself was of no great importance? Of course not.

My point is that the Church, and the truth it possessed, preceded the Bible, ergo the Bible cannot be the final norm. It was canonized for use in the liturgy, not as an end-all instruction for Christianity. It is understandable that those left with only the Bible and no other authority would hold it as their final norm, but that is not the case for Catholics. We would retain the fullness of truth even if every Bible in the world was destroyed.

Blessings.

Steve

 

[House_Harkonnen]

But what do you do when you disagree with the Church’s ruling?

That is precisely what happened in the early 1500s. There was a difference of opinion on the Church’s interpretation of scripture. The Church ruled that Martin Luther et al was wrong.

You (speaking in only a broad sense) disputed this ruling and instead started a new church.

How can you (again speaking broadly) possibly claim that this NEW church has authority? You rebelled against the Church, and her ruling, even though Christ told us:
Mt 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

So, if I disagree, I just start my own synod, and all is good, right?
:sad_yes:

But what do you do when you disagree with the Church’s ruling?

Depends on if the churches ruling is wrong.

That is precisely what happened in the early 1500s. There was a difference of opinion on the Church’s interpretation of scripture. The Church ruled that Martin Luther et al was wrong.

I disagree. Luther wanted to have a great ecumenical council where he could defend his views in front of the whole council. He even agreed to abide by the councils decision. Instead the denomination shut him down immediately. He never received his fair hearing from the Catholic Church. And he Catholic Church blundered even more when it issued Exurge Domini with such errant canons as #30.

You (speaking in only a broad sense) disputed this ruling and instead started a new church.

That’s because the ruling was wrong.

How can you (again speaking broadly) possibly claim that this NEW church has authority? You rebelled against the Church, and her ruling, even though Christ told us:
Mt 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

The church never fairly ruled on the issue, at least not until after they gave my hero Luther the heave ho.

So, if I disagree, I just start my own synod, and all is good, right?

That’s not how the various synods got started.

 

[Nicea325]

Depends on if the churches ruling is wrong.

I disagree. Luther wanted to have a great ecumenical council where he could defend his views in front of the whole council. He even agreed to abide by the councils decision. Instead the denomination shut him down immediately. He never received his fair hearing from the Catholic Church. And he Catholic Church blundered even more when it issued Exurge Domini with such errant canons as #30.

That’s because the ruling was wrong.

The church never fairly ruled on the issue, at least not until after they gave my hero Luther the heave ho.

That’s not how the various synods got started.

Indeed the church was in need of reform,but Luther went to far. I am all for reform when it is needed,but Luther wanted more than reform.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Nicea,

Indeed the church was in need of reform,but Luther went to far. I am all for reform when it is needed,but Luther wanted more than reform.

I agree 100%, and would also state that that old Protestant ‘story’ about how Luther was condemned without a fair hearing is bogus. Nobody was given more slack than Luther before he excommunicated himself by his obstinacy and his extremely radical published beliefs, not to mention his hatred of the Church.

As for Luther’s desire to ‘reform’ the Church, again, nothing could be further from the Church. What Luther wanted to do was destroy the Church and what is surprising is that that was his goal a couple of years before he was actually excommunicated.

Professor William H. Carroll might shed some light:

“Some time during the early spring of 1518 Luther had received a letter from his former professor of philosophy at the University of Erfurt, Jodocus Trutfetter, a man whom he deeply respected and who had expected great service to the Church from so able a mind and so strong a personality as Luther. Now Professor Trutfetter solemnly warned his former student against the path he was taking, urging him to turn back before it was too late. On May 9 Luther replied: ‘To speak plainly, my firm belief is that the reform of the Church is impossible unless the ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as the at present exist, are thoroughly uprooted.’ Such uprooting, he said, had now become his fixed purpose, ‘a resolution from which neither your authority, although it is certainly of the greatest weight for me, much less than that of any others, can turn me aside.’ Martin Luther, (Carrol quoting Fife, ‘Revolt of Martin Luther’, pg. 267)

This is one of the most important of the thousands of letters Luther wrote in his long, full lifetime. It reveals that as early as May 1518 he was essentially committed to the destruction of the Church as he knew it, though he had not yet proceeded to total public defiance of all Church authority. It shows his revolutionary temper, his purpose to ‘uproot’ rather than simply to reform, which is the goal of every revolutionary. It provides our first evidence that the upheaval to come was rightly to be called a revolt or a revolution, not a ‘reformation’. It also shows Luther in the act of coldly and deliberately breaking a bond whose quality and strength only the dedicated teacher and his former student know: the love and loyalty that emanate from their memories of each other.

Luther wrote this letter just before completing his defense in Latin of his position on indulgences. He sent a copy to the Pope with a cover letter, later printed with is as a preface. IN the preface he says that he ‘cannot recant’ from his position on indulgences, yet still insists on his willingness to listen to Leo X ‘as the ‘Voice of Christ’, who presides in him and speaks through him…….enliven me, kill me, call me back, confirm me, reject me, just as it pleases you’……despite the fact that in the text itself, sent with this letter, he had flatly and insultingly declared: ‘I do not care what pleases or displeases the Pope. He is just a man like other men. There have been many Popes inclined to errors, vices, and even very strange things.’

In mid-June the papal procurator, Mario de Perusco, made a formal charge of heresy against Luther – no for condemning the granting of indulgences for money, which the Church itself, through the Council of Trent, was later also to condemn, but for denying the existence of the treasury of grace and questioning the authority of the Pope. In early July Luther was summoned to appear at Rome for trial within sixty days. He responded with his characteristic defiance, declaring that he would not accept excommunication if the Church decreed it for him. On July 25 he reiterated that defiance, along with references to ‘eternal predestination,’ in another sermon before Duke George of Saxony and his court. Shouting matches broke out afterward between Luther and professors defending scholastic theology. Undoubtedly the entire academic brawl deepened Duke George’s concern about the damage Luther was already doing and much greater damage he was capable of doing.” William H. Carroll, “The Cleaving of Christendom’, pg. 7-8

A year before the 7 day long Leipzig Debate with Eck (talk about a ‘fair hearing’), Luther stated that he wanted to uproot the ‘ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as they at present exist’. To uproot all of these things would be to destroy the Church, which was exactly what Luther had in mind. This mid 1518 letter reveals Luther’s real intentions, which was not ‘reform’ but destruction of the Church.

Nicea, with this in mind, do you think that the Church was too lenient with Luther in waiting so long to formalize what everyone already knew – that he was not a Catholic in belief?

God Bless You Nice, Topper

 

[a_priori]

“Care must especially be had that that be held which was believed everywhere [ubique], always [semper], and by all [ab omnibus].”

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=37106

 

[marywarfield]

Hi Nicea,

I agree 100%, and would also state that that old Protestant ‘story’ about how Luther was condemned without a fair hearing is bogus. Nobody was given more slack than Luther before he excommunicated himself by his obstinacy and his extremely radical published beliefs, not to mention his hatred of the Church.

As for Luther’s desire to ‘reform’ the Church, again, nothing could be further from the Church. What Luther wanted to do was destroy the Church and what is surprising is that that was his goal a couple of years before he was actually excommunicated.

Professor William H. Carroll might shed some light:

“Some time during the early spring of 1518 Luther had received a letter from his former professor of philosophy at the University of Erfurt, Jodocus Trutfetter, a man whom he deeply respected and who had expected great service to the Church from so able a mind and so strong a personality as Luther. Now Professor Trutfetter solemnly warned his former student against the path he was taking, urging him to turn back before it was too late. On May 9 Luther replied: ‘To speak plainly, my firm belief is that the reform of the Church is impossible unless the ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as the at present exist, are thoroughly uprooted.’ Such uprooting, he said, had now become his fixed purpose, ‘a resolution from which neither your authority, although it is certainly of the greatest weight for me, much less than that of any others, can turn me aside.’ Martin Luther, (Carrol quoting Fife, ‘Revolt of Martin Luther’, pg. 267)

This is one of the most important of the thousands of letters Luther wrote in his long, full lifetime. It reveals that as early as May 1518 he was essentially committed to the destruction of the Church as he knew it, though he had not yet proceeded to total public defiance of all Church authority. It shows his revolutionary temper, his purpose to ‘uproot’ rather than simply to reform, which is the goal of every revolutionary. It provides our first evidence that the upheaval to come was rightly to be called a revolt or a revolution, not a ‘reformation’. It also shows Luther in the act of coldly and deliberately breaking a bond whose quality and strength only the dedicated teacher and his former student know: the love and loyalty that emanate from their memories of each other.

Luther wrote this letter just before completing his defense in Latin of his position on indulgences. He sent a copy to the Pope with a cover letter, later printed with is as a preface. IN the preface he says that he ‘cannot recant’ from his position on indulgences, yet still insists on his willingness to listen to Leo X ‘as the ‘Voice of Christ’, who presides in him and speaks through him…….enliven me, kill me, call me back, confirm me, reject me, just as it pleases you’……despite the fact that in the text itself, sent with this letter, he had flatly and insultingly declared: ‘I do not care what pleases or displeases the Pope. He is just a man like other men. There have been many Popes inclined to errors, vices, and even very strange things.’

In mid-June the papal procurator, Mario de Perusco, made a formal charge of heresy against Luther – no for condemning the granting of indulgences for money, which the Church itself, through the Council of Trent, was later also to condemn, but for denying the existence of the treasury of grace and questioning the authority of the Pope. In early July Luther was summoned to appear at Rome for trial within sixty days. He responded with his characteristic defiance, declaring that he would not accept excommunication if the Church decreed it for him. On July 25 he reiterated that defiance, along with references to ‘eternal predestination,’ in another sermon before Duke George of Saxony and his court. Shouting matches broke out afterward between Luther and professors defending scholastic theology. Undoubtedly the entire academic brawl deepened Duke George’s concern about the damage Luther was already doing and much greater damage he was capable of doing.” William H. Carroll, “The Cleaving of Christendom’, pg. 7-8

A year before the 7 day long Leipzig Debate with Eck (talk about a ‘fair hearing’), Luther stated that he wanted to uproot the ‘ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as they at present exist’. To uproot all of these things would be to destroy the Church, which was exactly what Luther had in mind. This mid 1518 letter reveals Luther’s real intentions, which was not ‘reform’ but destruction of the Church.

Nicea, with this in mind, do you think that the Church was too lenient with Luther in waiting so long to formalize what everyone already knew – that he was not a Catholic in belief?

God Bless You Nice, Topper

Excellent post and it re-iterates most if what I know
about Luther.
I have to say for some of us Catholics it is a bit
unsettling to listen to the pablum often used to
describe Luther as a benign person which is simply
untrue.
And it’s kind of unsettling to have him viewed not as
the actual heretic he was but simply as a “reformer”,
How is it some of our greatest saints were also
reformers such as St. Teresa of Avila and were
not excommunicated like Luther? Because they
really were reformers not heretics.

And then- private interpretation of Scripture?
One of the most violent acts against the Body of
Christ EVER. EVER.

 

[a_priori]

In Calvin’s Geneva:

“Abortion was not a political issue because any single woman discovered with child was drowned…(along with her unborn child and her lover if he could be found).” -William Manchester, A World Lit Only By Fire, pp.190-193

 

[spina1953]

Hi Nicea,

I agree 100%, and would also state that that old Protestant ‘story’ about how Luther was condemned without a fair hearing is bogus. Nobody was given more slack than Luther before he excommunicated himself by his obstinacy and his extremely radical published beliefs, not to mention his hatred of the Church.

As for Luther’s desire to ‘reform’ the Church, again, nothing could be further from the Church. What Luther wanted to do was destroy the Church and what is surprising is that that was his goal a couple of years before he was actually excommunicated.

Professor William H. Carroll might shed some light:

“Some time during the early spring of 1518 Luther had received a letter from his former professor of philosophy at the University of Erfurt, Jodocus Trutfetter, a man whom he deeply respected and who had expected great service to the Church from so able a mind and so strong a personality as Luther. Now Professor Trutfetter solemnly warned his former student against the path he was taking, urging him to turn back before it was too late. On May 9 Luther replied: ‘To speak plainly, my firm belief is that the reform of the Church is impossible unless the ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as the at present exist, are thoroughly uprooted.’ Such uprooting, he said, had now become his fixed purpose, ‘a resolution from which neither your authority, although it is certainly of the greatest weight for me, much less than that of any others, can turn me aside.’ Martin Luther, (Carrol quoting Fife, ‘Revolt of Martin Luther’, pg. 267)

This is one of the most important of the thousands of letters Luther wrote in his long, full lifetime. It reveals that as early as May 1518 he was essentially committed to the destruction of the Church as he knew it, though he had not yet proceeded to total public defiance of all Church authority. It shows his revolutionary temper, his purpose to ‘uproot’ rather than simply to reform, which is the goal of every revolutionary. It provides our first evidence that the upheaval to come was rightly to be called a revolt or a revolution, not a ‘reformation’. It also shows Luther in the act of coldly and deliberately breaking a bond whose quality and strength only the dedicated teacher and his former student know: the love and loyalty that emanate from their memories of each other.

Luther wrote this letter just before completing his defense in Latin of his position on indulgences. He sent a copy to the Pope with a cover letter, later printed with is as a preface. IN the preface he says that he ‘cannot recant’ from his position on indulgences, yet still insists on his willingness to listen to Leo X ‘as the ‘Voice of Christ’, who presides in him and speaks through him…….enliven me, kill me, call me back, confirm me, reject me, just as it pleases you’……despite the fact that in the text itself, sent with this letter, he had flatly and insultingly declared: ‘I do not care what pleases or displeases the Pope. He is just a man like other men. There have been many Popes inclined to errors, vices, and even very strange things.’

In mid-June the papal procurator, Mario de Perusco, made a formal charge of heresy against Luther – no for condemning the granting of indulgences for money, which the Church itself, through the Council of Trent, was later also to condemn, but for denying the existence of the treasury of grace and questioning the authority of the Pope. In early July Luther was summoned to appear at Rome for trial within sixty days. He responded with his characteristic defiance, declaring that he would not accept excommunication if the Church decreed it for him. On July 25 he reiterated that defiance, along with references to ‘eternal predestination,’ in another sermon before Duke George of Saxony and his court. Shouting matches broke out afterward between Luther and professors defending scholastic theology. Undoubtedly the entire academic brawl deepened Duke George’s concern about the damage Luther was already doing and much greater damage he was capable of doing.” William H. Carroll, “The Cleaving of Christendom’, pg. 7-8

A year before the 7 day long Leipzig Debate with Eck (talk about a ‘fair hearing’), Luther stated that he wanted to uproot the ‘ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as they at present exist’. To uproot all of these things would be to destroy the Church, which was exactly what Luther had in mind. This mid 1518 letter reveals Luther’s real intentions, which was not ‘reform’ but destruction of the Church.

Nicea, with this in mind, do you think that the Church was too lenient with Luther in waiting so long to formalize what everyone already knew – that he was not a Catholic in belief?

God Bless You Nice, Topper

Great Post Topper! Luther from all the history I have read points to Luther being rather to put it lightly unstable.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Hi Nicea,

I agree 100%, and would also state that that old Protestant ‘story’ about how Luther was condemned without a fair hearing is bogus. Nobody was given more slack than Luther before he excommunicated himself by his obstinacy and his extremely radical published beliefs, not to mention his hatred of the Church.

As for Luther’s desire to ‘reform’ the Church, again, nothing could be further from the Church. What Luther wanted to do was destroy the Church and what is surprising is that that was his goal a couple of years before he was actually excommunicated.

Professor William H. Carroll might shed some light:

“Some time during the early spring of 1518 Luther had received a letter from his former professor of philosophy at the University of Erfurt, Jodocus Trutfetter, a man whom he deeply respected and who had expected great service to the Church from so able a mind and so strong a personality as Luther. Now Professor Trutfetter solemnly warned his former student against the path he was taking, urging him to turn back before it was too late. On May 9 Luther replied: ‘To speak plainly, my firm belief is that the reform of the Church is impossible unless the ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as the at present exist, are thoroughly uprooted.’ Such uprooting, he said, had now become his fixed purpose, ‘a resolution from which neither your authority, although it is certainly of the greatest weight for me, much less than that of any others, can turn me aside.’ Martin Luther, (Carrol quoting Fife, ‘Revolt of Martin Luther’, pg. 267)

This is one of the most important of the thousands of letters Luther wrote in his long, full lifetime. It reveals that as early as May 1518 he was essentially committed to the destruction of the Church as he knew it, though he had not yet proceeded to total public defiance of all Church authority. It shows his revolutionary temper, his purpose to ‘uproot’ rather than simply to reform, which is the goal of every revolutionary. It provides our first evidence that the upheaval to come was rightly to be called a revolt or a revolution, not a ‘reformation’. It also shows Luther in the act of coldly and deliberately breaking a bond whose quality and strength only the dedicated teacher and his former student know: the love and loyalty that emanate from their memories of each other.

Luther wrote this letter just before completing his defense in Latin of his position on indulgences. He sent a copy to the Pope with a cover letter, later printed with is as a preface. IN the preface he says that he ‘cannot recant’ from his position on indulgences, yet still insists on his willingness to listen to Leo X ‘as the ‘Voice of Christ’, who presides in him and speaks through him…….enliven me, kill me, call me back, confirm me, reject me, just as it pleases you’……despite the fact that in the text itself, sent with this letter, he had flatly and insultingly declared: ‘I do not care what pleases or displeases the Pope. He is just a man like other men. There have been many Popes inclined to errors, vices, and even very strange things.’

In mid-June the papal procurator, Mario de Perusco, made a formal charge of heresy against Luther – no for condemning the granting of indulgences for money, which the Church itself, through the Council of Trent, was later also to condemn, but for denying the existence of the treasury of grace and questioning the authority of the Pope. In early July Luther was summoned to appear at Rome for trial within sixty days. He responded with his characteristic defiance, declaring that he would not accept excommunication if the Church decreed it for him. On July 25 he reiterated that defiance, along with references to ‘eternal predestination,’ in another sermon before Duke George of Saxony and his court. Shouting matches broke out afterward between Luther and professors defending scholastic theology. Undoubtedly the entire academic brawl deepened Duke George’s concern about the damage Luther was already doing and much greater damage he was capable of doing.” William H. Carroll, “The Cleaving of Christendom’, pg. 7-8

A year before the 7 day long Leipzig Debate with Eck (talk about a ‘fair hearing’), Luther stated that he wanted to uproot the ‘ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as they at present exist’. To uproot all of these things would be to destroy the Church, which was exactly what Luther had in mind. This mid 1518 letter reveals Luther’s real intentions, which was not ‘reform’ but destruction of the Church.

Nicea, with this in mind, do you think that the Church was too lenient with Luther in waiting so long to formalize what everyone already knew – that he was not a Catholic in belief?

God Bless You Nice, Topper

Suffice to say Dr. Carroll might be a bit biased in his assessment.

Dude did think that burning heretics was beneficial. A pretty twisted ideology IMO.

Even so, from his description, I like Luther.

 

[Nicea325]

Suffice to say Dr. Carroll might be a bit biased in his assessment.

Dude did think that burning heretics was beneficial. A pretty twisted ideology IMO.

Even so, from his description, I like Luther.

As your belief of Luther is as well. Luther is NO ECF and nothing even close. Luther was selfish…period!

Burning? How many Catholics were also burned by Protestants? Burning people was not invented by the RCC-sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[Nicea325]

Hi Nicea,

I agree 100%, and would also state that that old Protestant ‘story’ about how Luther was condemned without a fair hearing is bogus. Nobody was given more slack than Luther before he excommunicated himself by his obstinacy and his extremely radical published beliefs, not to mention his hatred of the Church.

As for Luther’s desire to ‘reform’ the Church, again, nothing could be further from the Church. What Luther wanted to do was destroy the Church and what is surprising is that that was his goal a couple of years before he was actually excommunicated.

Professor William H. Carroll might shed some light:

“Some time during the early spring of 1518 Luther had received a letter from his former professor of philosophy at the University of Erfurt, Jodocus Trutfetter, a man whom he deeply respected and who had expected great service to the Church from so able a mind and so strong a personality as Luther. Now Professor Trutfetter solemnly warned his former student against the path he was taking, urging him to turn back before it was too late. On May 9 Luther replied: ‘To speak plainly, my firm belief is that the reform of the Church is impossible unless the ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as the at present exist, are thoroughly uprooted.’ Such uprooting, he said, had now become his fixed purpose, ‘a resolution from which neither your authority, although it is certainly of the greatest weight for me, much less than that of any others, can turn me aside.’ Martin Luther, (Carrol quoting Fife, ‘Revolt of Martin Luther’, pg. 267)

This is one of the most important of the thousands of letters Luther wrote in his long, full lifetime. It reveals that as early as May 1518 he was essentially committed to the destruction of the Church as he knew it, though he had not yet proceeded to total public defiance of all Church authority. It shows his revolutionary temper, his purpose to ‘uproot’ rather than simply to reform, which is the goal of every revolutionary. It provides our first evidence that the upheaval to come was rightly to be called a revolt or a revolution, not a ‘reformation’. It also shows Luther in the act of coldly and deliberately breaking a bond whose quality and strength only the dedicated teacher and his former student know: the love and loyalty that emanate from their memories of each other.

Luther wrote this letter just before completing his defense in Latin of his position on indulgences. He sent a copy to the Pope with a cover letter, later printed with is as a preface. IN the preface he says that he ‘cannot recant’ from his position on indulgences, yet still insists on his willingness to listen to Leo X ‘as the ‘Voice of Christ’, who presides in him and speaks through him…….enliven me, kill me, call me back, confirm me, reject me, just as it pleases you’……despite the fact that in the text itself, sent with this letter, he had flatly and insultingly declared: ‘I do not care what pleases or displeases the Pope. He is just a man like other men. There have been many Popes inclined to errors, vices, and even very strange things.’

In mid-June the papal procurator, Mario de Perusco, made a formal charge of heresy against Luther – no for condemning the granting of indulgences for money, which the Church itself, through the Council of Trent, was later also to condemn, but for denying the existence of the treasury of grace and questioning the authority of the Pope. In early July Luther was summoned to appear at Rome for trial within sixty days. He responded with his characteristic defiance, declaring that he would not accept excommunication if the Church decreed it for him. On July 25 he reiterated that defiance, along with references to ‘eternal predestination,’ in another sermon before Duke George of Saxony and his court. Shouting matches broke out afterward between Luther and professors defending scholastic theology. Undoubtedly the entire academic brawl deepened Duke George’s concern about the damage Luther was already doing and much greater damage he was capable of doing.” William H. Carroll, “The Cleaving of Christendom’, pg. 7-8

A year before the 7 day long Leipzig Debate with Eck (talk about a ‘fair hearing’), Luther stated that he wanted to uproot the ‘ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as they at present exist’. To uproot all of these things would be to destroy the Church, which was exactly what Luther had in mind. This mid 1518 letter reveals Luther’s real intentions, which was not ‘reform’ but destruction of the Church.

Nicea, with this in mind, do you think that the Church was too lenient with Luther in waiting so long to formalize what everyone already knew – that he was not a Catholic in belief?

God Bless You Nice, Topper

Lenient with Luther? I do not think so. Luther’s reform was NOT reform,but deformation. He even questioned NT books-what does that say about the man? How many after the NT was canonized? His ego was an issue.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

As your belief of Luther is as well. Luther is NO ECF and nothing even close. Luther was selfish…period!

Burning? How many Catholics were also burned by Protestants? Burning people was not invented by the RCC-sorry to burst your bubble.

The ECFS agree with Luther. That’s why he quoted them at length. Even so, he might have been selfish at times, but who isn’t. He constantly pointed back to the cross in spite of his flaws, which is why he is my hero.

Burning? How many Catholics were also burned by Protestants? Burning people was not invented by the RCC-sorry to burst your bubble.

No indeed. But a guy who believes that burning dissenters was beneficial might have some other biases.

 

[Topper17]

Hi HH,

Suffice to say Dr. Carroll might be a bit biased in his assessment.

People can attempt to change the subject from something about Luther to something about a Catholic, but it is usually VERY transparent and they reveal their own bias in the process. Remember that all that Carroll did was publish a Luther quote about how he wanted to destroy the Church. And in this situation, who do you criticize? Carroll of course. Claiming he is biased, and ignoring the shocking mid 1518 Luther quote is a perfect example of giving Luther all the slack in the world. In reality, that quote is an amazing display of arrogance and hatred, and is not indicative of someone who was actually a Christian Leader.

The ECFS agree with Luther. That’s why he quoted them at length. Even so, he might have been selfish at times, but who isn’t. He constantly pointed back to the cross in spite of his flaws, which is why he is my hero.

Your post was a ‘target rich environment’ (Maverick in Top Gun) but I picked out just a few aspects to start on.

Actually, only at the beginning of his Revolt did Luther believe that his beliefs were in line with the Fathers. As he ‘progressed’ (if you could call it that), he slowly became aware of the fact that even Augustine didn’t support him (on Salvation). In fact, especially at the beginning, Luther was amazingly ignorant of the Fathers:

“According to his (Luther’s) knowledge of early Christian literature, there was a sizeable gap in time between the writers of the New Testament and the earliest Church Fathers. Luther regarded Tertullian, who died in 230, as the earliest writer in the church after the apostles………he apparently did not know the writers who later acquired the title “apostolic fathers”. He was therefore, able to invoke the historical and chronological argument in a form no longer available to theologians of the twentieth century.” Pelikan (Lutheran to EO convert), “Luther the Expositor”, pg. 83-4

This means that Luther was unaware of the existence of the first 17 Early Church Fathers. What is strange I think though is that Tertullian fell into Montanism and that he was, at least according to Luther, the First Father. Furthermore, he didn’t exactly represent the Fathers ‘fairly’ even from his surprising ignorance of them.

“In Luther’s exegesis, the modern scholar learns much about Luther but little about a historical or philological approach to the Bible. Luther calls on history when it suits his purposes. But he is not interested in history as an encompassing, interconnected web of smaller truths, each joined to the whole and changing the whole whenever one is reinterpreted or called in question, as when an anachronism is discovered.” Marius pg. 99-100

I don’t think that it was all Luther’s fault that he wasn’t all that interested in the Fathers. In fact, the University of Wittenberg didn’t even begin to form a library until 1512, the year that Luther received his Doctorate. (Schwiebert, pg. 245).

Maybe Western Christendom would have been much more unified if Luther had been a student of the Fathers. However, Tertullian, who was to Luther, the oldest Father, preached solidly against Private Interpretation, and Luther went ahead and taught it anyway – so – all we can assume is that he taught whatever he found ‘necessary’ to promote and protect his radical Salvation By Faith Alone.

“But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith." Tertullian, On Prescription against the Heretics,32 (c. A.D. 200),in ANF,III:258“Early in October, 1531, agreeably with the Saxon Elector s Mandate, a number of persons suspected of holding Anabaptist views were taken to Eisenach for punishment and were there put to the torture; it was now judged advisable to obtain a fresh memorandum from the Wittenberg theologians.

HH, if you would like, we could delve into the fact that your hero Luther recommended death to the Anabaptists. Contrary to the Legend of Luther’s tolerance, he was extremely intolerant of people with beliefs different than his were, claiming that they were knowingly in league with Satan if they continued to pretend to disagree with him.

I would agree that the Luther that I learned about as a Protestant boy was very ‘hero-like’, but the Luther of Real History, is NOT AT ALL. The Legend of Luther has been built to protect Luther’s theology which of course protects the foundation for Protestant theology. Personally I have never seen anyone describe Luther as a ‘hero’ after they knew the Truth about him.

The man who ‘reinvented’ Sola Scriptura and Private Interpretation (for himself) eventually came to see how harmful it was for Christianity and withdrew it. But it was far too late to put the genie back in the bottle and now we have massive doctrinal dissention within Protestantism as a result.

God Bless You HH, Topper

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Suffice to say Dr. Carroll might be a bit biased in his assessment.

Dude did think that burning heretics was beneficial. A pretty twisted ideology IMO.

Even so, from his description, I like Luther.

So… Your reply is an ad hominem instead of treating the subject matter?

You realize that is a fallacious way to respond?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Hi HH,

God Bless You HH, Topper

Actually, only at the beginning of his Revolt did Luther believe that his beliefs were in line with the Fathers. As he ‘progressed’ (if you could call it that), he slowly became aware of the fact that even Augustine didn’t support him (on Salvation). In fact, especially at the beginning, Luther was amazingly ignorant of the Fathers:

“According to his (Luther’s) knowledge of early Christian literature, there was a sizeable gap in time between the writers of the New Testament and the earliest Church Fathers. Luther regarded Tertullian, who died in 230, as the earliest writer in the church after the apostles………he apparently did not know the writers who later acquired the title “apostolic fathers”. He was therefore, able to invoke the historical and chronological argument in a form no longer available to theologians of the twentieth century.” Pelikan (Lutheran to EO convert), “Luther the Expositor”, pg. 83-4

LOL, Pelikan is simply wrong then especially about Luther saying he is the “oldest of the fathers”. Since he quotes Tertullinan and Irenaeus. Irenaeus is an “apostolic father” and contemporary of Tertullian.

This means that Luther was unaware of the existence of the first 17 Early Church Fathers. What is strange I think though is that Tertullian fell into Montanism and that he was, at least according to Luther, the First Father. Furthermore, he didn’t exactly represent the Fathers ‘fairly’ even from his surprising ignorance of them.

Why would he quote Irenaeus if he didn’t know he existed?

HH, if you would like, we could delve into the fact that your hero Luther recommended death to the Anabaptists. Contrary to the Legend of Luther’s tolerance, he was extremely intolerant of people with beliefs different than his were, claiming that they were knowingly in league with Satan if they continued to pretend to disagree with him.

I never claimed Luther was tolerant. That would be a silly assertion. He is my hero not because of his tolerance.

I would agree that the Luther that I learned about as a Protestant boy was very ‘hero-like’, but the Luther of Real History, is NOT AT ALL. The Legend of Luther has been built to protect Luther’s theology which of course protects the foundation for Protestant theology. Personally I have never seen anyone describe Luther as a ‘hero’ after they knew the Truth about him.

Alright. What hard truth about Luther do I need to know that is going to shake my stance that he is my hero? What in your opinion is the most damning thing?