M
mlcampbell
Guest
I am currently in a friendly debate with a Lutheran friend of mine about the Reformation and the validity of concilliar/papal infallibility. I’ve leveled almost every objection to his arguments I can think of, but I’m getting to the point where I lack sufficient historical and doctrinal knowledge. Here is his last post to me:
*So some thoughts about Luther and Calvin. I’ve read some Luther. Nearly everyone thinks he means what he says. No one denies that he loved God. Many Catholics think he’s an insane megalomaniac, but I don’t think they’ll deny that he loved God. So I think there’s good reason to believe he loved God. And I think he believed he knew the truth. Luther isn’t a formal heretic, I don’t think. He may have been proud; he certainly thought he was. But he thought he was right.
Further: he didn’t split the Church. He wanted a council and only refused to recant his views. He viewed Protestant churches as a temporary fix until a general, fair, and open council could be convened. But he died before that could happen. Remember: The RCC excommunicated him; he always thought of himself as Catholic.
In many ways, the split was caused by the fact that Luther threatened the power structure of the Church. His views were not widely condemened until he challenged the sale of indulgences (which the Pope had authorized the Cardinal of Germany to collect in order to build St. Peter’s Basillica). I think the better explanation is that he challenged the political power structure of his day. But that’s not his fault. The Catholic Church could have allowed him to preach his view openly and then Protestants may not have become separated. But the Catholic Church viewed itself, as you correctly noted, as part of the basic social structure of the West, and so took upon itself a variety of political responsibilities - like crushing dissent - that it viewed as essential to prevent chaos.
In fact, one of the reasons I’m Lutheran is because of Luther’s Political Theology. It’s the Two Kingdoms. The Church does not rule the secular realm, for Luther. God rules through two domains - the secular kingdom which provides justice and the heavenly kingdom which provides grace. In the Kingdom of the Right - you get grace, what you don’t deserve. In the Kingdom of the Left - you get justice, what you do deserve.
The Catholic Church, to my knowledge, has never renounced its claim to authority over earthly kingdoms. (In fact, see Canon 3 of the Fourth Lateran Council for evidence of this.
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html)).
I think the RCC sweeps these claims under the rug because they a) no longer believe them, but b) know that they can’t admit that they taught false doctrine. So they don’t deal with it.
And in fact, the anti-religious liberty of the Catholic Church has been a big issue in the recent past. Have you read the Syllabus of Errors? Check it out. Many Catholics think its binding on Catholics. If so, no person can object to Catholicism being the established religion of their political order:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
I think in many ways what’s beautiful about the West is the coexistence of tolerance and orthodoxy. The RCC has tried to embrace this dichotomy. And with the partial exception of Latin America and some RCC intellectuals, they have. But they have not renounced their claims; and they should.
Of course if they did that then Papal and Concilar Infallibility would have to be jettisoned.*
Please help me to respond directly to the points he poses above. Please don’t give me general arguments. Just as a side note, I think that he’s making Luther out to be a little softer and a little less culpable than he actually was. Would anyone agree with that?
*So some thoughts about Luther and Calvin. I’ve read some Luther. Nearly everyone thinks he means what he says. No one denies that he loved God. Many Catholics think he’s an insane megalomaniac, but I don’t think they’ll deny that he loved God. So I think there’s good reason to believe he loved God. And I think he believed he knew the truth. Luther isn’t a formal heretic, I don’t think. He may have been proud; he certainly thought he was. But he thought he was right.
Further: he didn’t split the Church. He wanted a council and only refused to recant his views. He viewed Protestant churches as a temporary fix until a general, fair, and open council could be convened. But he died before that could happen. Remember: The RCC excommunicated him; he always thought of himself as Catholic.
In many ways, the split was caused by the fact that Luther threatened the power structure of the Church. His views were not widely condemened until he challenged the sale of indulgences (which the Pope had authorized the Cardinal of Germany to collect in order to build St. Peter’s Basillica). I think the better explanation is that he challenged the political power structure of his day. But that’s not his fault. The Catholic Church could have allowed him to preach his view openly and then Protestants may not have become separated. But the Catholic Church viewed itself, as you correctly noted, as part of the basic social structure of the West, and so took upon itself a variety of political responsibilities - like crushing dissent - that it viewed as essential to prevent chaos.
In fact, one of the reasons I’m Lutheran is because of Luther’s Political Theology. It’s the Two Kingdoms. The Church does not rule the secular realm, for Luther. God rules through two domains - the secular kingdom which provides justice and the heavenly kingdom which provides grace. In the Kingdom of the Right - you get grace, what you don’t deserve. In the Kingdom of the Left - you get justice, what you do deserve.
The Catholic Church, to my knowledge, has never renounced its claim to authority over earthly kingdoms. (In fact, see Canon 3 of the Fourth Lateran Council for evidence of this.
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html)).
I think the RCC sweeps these claims under the rug because they a) no longer believe them, but b) know that they can’t admit that they taught false doctrine. So they don’t deal with it.
And in fact, the anti-religious liberty of the Catholic Church has been a big issue in the recent past. Have you read the Syllabus of Errors? Check it out. Many Catholics think its binding on Catholics. If so, no person can object to Catholicism being the established religion of their political order:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
I think in many ways what’s beautiful about the West is the coexistence of tolerance and orthodoxy. The RCC has tried to embrace this dichotomy. And with the partial exception of Latin America and some RCC intellectuals, they have. But they have not renounced their claims; and they should.
Of course if they did that then Papal and Concilar Infallibility would have to be jettisoned.*
Please help me to respond directly to the points he poses above. Please don’t give me general arguments. Just as a side note, I think that he’s making Luther out to be a little softer and a little less culpable than he actually was. Would anyone agree with that?