How could Luther state that God denies the burning of heretics when hell is the eternal fire and Purgatory is the temporal fire?

[Peter_J]

Or am I totally off the mark on this?

Possibly. To me (and this is nothing more than my :twocents what you have been saying seems pseudo-traditionalist. Unfortunately (or fortunately?), we aren’t on the traditionalist forum and there don’t seem to be any traditionalists on this thread to say “Yes that’s what we believe” or “No it isn’t”.

On the other hand, those (like myself) who have never been traditionalists are probably all (or at least mostly) just bored.

 

[pocohombre]

The Church also helped many people who were sentenced by the state for being heretic by giving them confession and saving their life.

While it can be seen 2 ways the church working with the law for the good, or can be accused for the bad, it still can be seen both ways.

I am also wondering if indeed some turned to find Christ for the first time ( like the thief on the cross), for they may not have found Jesus in their accusers and executioners…(protestant or catholic)

 

[ltwin]

Where did the Church ever state that? And regardless if a Popes personal opinion was in agreement with Roman Law, how it makes the Church responsible for the State.

Today abortion is now accepted by the law, and the Church disagrees with it, But is the Church also responsible for not stopping it also?

The Church also helped many people who were sentenced by the state for being heretic by giving them confession and saving their life.

While it can be seen 2 ways the church working with the law for the good, or can be accused for the bad, it still can be seen both ways.

Luthers way of condemning the Church, and the Law and then doing it himself? Where is that reasoning?

How is the execution of heretics not the responsibility of the Church? The way you try to portray it, it was the secular princes that was so determined to find and punish heretics and the Church was reluctantly called on to make a determination of heresy.

That’s ridiculous. If any secular authorities were enthusiastic in hunting down and killing heretics, it was because they were encouraged to do that by the Church, which had an interest in maintaining its ecclesiastical monopoly. The state’s interest was indirect—a heretic threatened the Church, which was a pillar of society and a legitimator of secular authority. Therefore, someone who dissented or questioned the Church inherently threatened social order.

You’d think that the Pope could have at any time condemned the execution of heretics and called for a more humane way to treat them while protecting the integrity of the Church like they did in the old days before the Church became a force to be reckoned with in the Roman Empire.

But the reality seems to be quite different. The Church and State mutually reinforced upon each other the need to kill heretics. Any assertion to the contrary is wishful thinking.

 

[rinnie]

How is the execution of heretics not the responsibility of the Church? The way you try to portray it, it was the secular princes that was so determined to find and punish heretics and the Church was reluctantly called on to make a determination of heresy.

That’s ridiculous. If any secular authorities were enthusiastic in hunting down and killing heretics, it was because they were encouraged to do that by the Church, which had an interest in maintaining its ecclesiastical monopoly. The state’s interest was indirect—a heretic threatened the Church, which was a pillar of society and a legitimator of secular authority. Therefore, someone who dissented or questioned the Church inherently threatened social order.

You’d think that the Pope could have at any time condemned the execution of heretics and called for a more humane way to treat them while protecting the integrity of the Church like they did in the old days before the Church became a force to be reckoned with in the Roman Empire.

But the reality seems to be quite different. The Church and State mutually reinforced upon each other the need to kill heretics. Any assertion to the contrary is wishful thinking.

And here we go again the wheels on the bus go round and round.

You believe that the Pope could have at any time condemned the execution of heretics and since he did not he is responsible for it and so that means it was a teaching of the RCC.

You put the Church in the position to either go against the promise made to God and defend his word and anyone who goes against it is a Heretic.

Or go against the word of God and refuse to defend the RCC teaching of heretics.

Because the Law back then was if a person was a heretic it meant death.

How can I defend this. The truth is what it is. You blame the RCC for the law back then. You refuse to see that the RCC never taught that a person should be burned at the stakes for being a heretic.

You refuse to believe that because they obeyed the law and guarded its position to defend the teaching of Christ the RCC taught heretics SHOULD be burned and its Church Dogma. I csn only defend the RCC in saying it is not and has never been taught.

You claim because there was sin in the RCC and there could have been evil motives of a Pope or Priest that by doing nothing to change the Law the RCC taught this.

What do you want from me except to say you are wrong. Period.

The Popes today even recognize the wrongs done by clergy then and now. But you refuse to see that wrongs done by Clergy of Christ and not the sins of Christ or his Church.

You and many others here say this. And where I will disagree until my death. EVEN if there could be GOD given proof that the intentions of these leaders at the time were evil, it is a doctrine of the RCC because they did not stop it. Because thats where we keep getting at.

Because I REFUSE to accept not that MUCH Clergy could have had evil motives, that some could have had good motives. Because I refuse to condemn them all I am blind.

Because I choose to believe God will judge them the same today as yesterday for evil.

The burning of heretics was never a teaching of the RCC. The sins and actions of leaders of the Church CANNOT and does not mean its the teaching.

Because I refuse to let someone claim that the RCC is guilty because of human works of its leaders and human works of leaders confirms its the official Church teaching.

Infallible Church teaching comes from the Holy Spirit not practices of Clergy in the RCC.

No One has the right to say the Church taught it because it did not stop it. Because that is what is being said here. Has been for years.

What has been done here the last month is just that. Because the RCC did indeed defend the teaching of Christ which it had and has authority to do, in calling a person a heretic the RCC taught that The Church Leaders have the right to burn heretics at the stake.

And beings that this teaching could not be produced then humans have the right make it a teaching because it looks that way to them.

And because I insist to teach the truth that it is not and was never a teaching of the RCC I am accused of ignoring sin of previous leaders of the Church.

Then I will have to rest my case. Because I will never be able to make people accept truth, they will find ways to not accept truth by their own free will.

 

[rinnie]

Are you sure you believe this, enough to feel the pain, see the ugliness, for just a second, and not give it lip service and move on to a more secure, comfortable, even beautiful vision of church ? I did say " steeped in ugliness of sin, yet still holding up the gospel ? So I agree you do not have to be divine to preach and I am including the entire western church, both Catholic and Protestant, that experimented with absolute power and befruited this ugliness that we speak of. It does not detract from the good. Justification stops true self -examination, of the past or present, of ourselves or of the corporate Body.

I truely do believe this. I believe that a Pope can have human sin and still have the Power of the Holy Spirit can speak through him.

I believe the Pope can make mistakes with his own personal opinions but cannot make them when he speaks in the name of God and his RCC.

Because Jesus promised us that when he and the People who have been given this power speak in his name HE will give them the words.

I never heard Jesus say that the Pope or Bishops are free from sin, and this is not nor ever been a teaching of Christ or his Apostles. If it was it would be in the word of God in ST or SS.

Do you know the Pope John Paul 11 went to confession DAILY? Apostolic succession is passed on. If Christ gave the Apostles this gift by the Power of the Holy Spirit in the laying of hands the Pope would have it.

There is nothing in Apostolic Succession that Christ gave to the original Apostles that died with them. The Holy Spirit is with the RCC from the time to Pentecost until the end of age. God did not leave us orphans.

Christ told his Apostles to go out and spread the good news to the whole world. Did he give them an impossible task? Do you think he felt they could PERSONALLY go to one end of the world to another. Especially without a car or plane

Come on here. The Apostolic Succesion was to be passed on. Until Jesus comes again.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I understand that. But why did he just not say that he believed that we should not burn heretics at the stake that the buring of heretics should be the will of God not of humans.

Especially know what the teachings of hell are. Its the eternal fires.

Why did he say it goes against the will of the Holy Spirit. I just don’t see why knowing the teachings of the RCC he would say that.

And knowing that purgatory is the final cleansing that burn away all human desire for sin.

Rather it be a physical burning or spriitual burning it is still the teachings of God.

We’ll never know why Martin Luther, or anyone for that matter, did or omit certain things.

 

[pocohombre]

I truely do believe this. I believe that a Pope can have human sin and still have the Power of the Holy Spirit can speak through him.

That is right, why even a jackass has spoken truly in the bible( no disrespect intended, just to hyperbole your point). I apply this, or should, to anyone (as a true Augustinian). Perhaps we should apply this to any problems (sins) with the Orthodox and with Protestants. Like can you imagine, Protestants still being used by the Holy Spirit despite their division by 30,0000 ?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Protestants still being used by the Holy Spirit despite their division by 30,0000 ?

Name them:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

You can put in the rest.

 

[JonNC]

Name them:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

You can put in the rest.

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Jon

 

[Contarini]

On my last thread which was derailed over and over by a teaching of Luther that was corrected by the RCC.

The question was # 33 in his diet of worms.

1. The burning of heretics go against the will of the Spirit.

The Church has been condemned for correcting him on this, and as the truth always comes out, the Church was correct and Luther changed his mind.

No. The Church changed its mind. Or, if you prefer, it wasn’t the Church speaking in the first place.

Okay Pope Leo X condemned Luther for saying burning heretics was against the will of the Spirit.

When he did this, the Church was accused of saying that they believed the burning of heretics was indeed what God wanted them to do.

No, church leaders did explicitly say this, and they handed heretics over to the secular authorities on the basis of this belief.

If he did, it would be Church dogma and practiced today.

Confusing. Clearly it wasn’t dogma. But at the time it looked very much as if it was.

To get to the official teaching, and then my thoughts I will start here.

The Pope said it was wrong for an ordinary human to claim to know the will of God. Luther changed his mind, and in 1531 began to advocate the death penalty. Go figure:blush:

First of all, that’s not quite right. Luther never advocated that people should be burned for heresy. As far as I know he never advocated burning at all, and he never advocated executing people for heresy. I know that modern people find it hard to see the importance of the distinctions sixteenth-century people made between different reasons for killing people having to do with religious or other conviction, but the distinctions matter if you want to understand your ancestors instead of just using them as props for your propaganda.

Luther advocated execution for sedition–behavior that threatened the basis of society. He also, as you point out below, thought that people who denied the basic, common beliefs of Christianity were blasphemers and worthy of death. Everyone thought that, pretty much.

Whether this was a change of mind or just a change of emphasis I’m not sure. It certainly is not a direct contradiction, and it certainly also reflects a different focus and set of concerns from those he had as a young firebrand in 1517.

Here was my question, how could he state that God denys the burning of heretics when hell is the eternal fires.

1. The Church today does not teach literal fire in either hell or purgatory. Therefore, a case could be made that in fact the Church was even more wrong on this point than Luther thought.
2. Luther was certainly speaking of the handing over of heretics to the civil authority by the Church–of temporal punishment in this life.

So if you’re talking historically, no. 2 applies–you’re reading Luther completely anachronistically and out of context. If, on the other hand, you’re talking theologically, no. 1 applies–that is to say, Luther’s claim stands and is now widely accepted by Catholics in a far stronger sense than Luther intended it. That is to say, God does not vengefully inflict pain on the wicked either in this life or in the next. The fires of hell represent the consequences of alienation from the God who fills heaven and earth. They are not something God chooses to “inflict” on people.

Either way, you have no case for your claim that Luther was wrong and the Church has been vindicated on this point. Exactly the opposite is true.

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

Nice to see you join the thread Edwin/Contarini … well, a little awkward too, since I’ve been thinking about abandoning this ship.

 

[GKC]

I’m just watching. And occasionally rereading a little Peters, chaps 1 and 2.

GKC

 

[rinnie]

No. The Church changed its mind. Or, if you prefer, it wasn’t the Church speaking in the first place.

No, church leaders did explicitly say this, and they handed heretics over to the secular authorities on the basis of this belief.

Confusing. Clearly it wasn’t dogma. But at the time it looked very much as if it was.

First of all, that’s not quite right. Luther never advocated that people should be burned for heresy. As far as I know he never advocated burning at all, and he never advocated executing people for heresy. I know that modern people find it hard to see the importance of the distinctions sixteenth-century people made between different reasons for killing people having to do with religious or other conviction, but the distinctions matter if you want to understand your ancestors instead of just using them as props for your propaganda.

Luther advocated execution for sedition–behavior that threatened the basis of society. He also, as you point out below, thought that people who denied the basic, common beliefs of Christianity were blasphemers and worthy of death. Everyone thought that, pretty much.

Whether this was a change of mind or just a change of emphasis I’m not sure. It certainly is not a direct contradiction, and it certainly also reflects a different focus and set of concerns from those he had as a young firebrand in 1517.

1. The Church today does not teach literal fire in either hell or purgatory. Therefore, a case could be made that in fact the Church was even more wrong on this point than Luther thought.
2. Luther was certainly speaking of the handing over of heretics to the civil authority by the Church–of temporal punishment in this life.

So if you’re talking historically, no. 2 applies–you’re reading Luther completely anachronistically and out of context. If, on the other hand, you’re talking theologically, no. 1 applies–that is to say, Luther’s claim stands and is now widely accepted by Catholics in a far stronger sense than Luther intended it. That is to say, God does not vengefully inflict pain on the wicked either in this life or in the next. The fires of hell represent the consequences of alienation from the God who fills heaven and earth. They are not something God chooses to “inflict” on people.

Either way, you have no case for your claim that Luther was wrong and the Church has been vindicated on this point. Exactly the opposite is true.

Edwin

Luther said killing of heretics went against the will of the Holy Spirit. The Church said Luther was wrong because no one is in the position to claim the will of the Holy Spirit with the human mind. So I disagree with you Edwin.

Luther later did recan that statement, I disagree with you again.

You cannot state what the mind of all Church leaders were at that time, Rather or not some agreed or some did not is not the question.

The statement was made that because the Church did not agree with the Statement of Luther burning heretics went against the will of the Holy Spirit for the reason I stated, it was taken that they said it was.

You need to produce an official teaching of the RCC that Heretics being burned was the will of the Holy Spirit. If you cannot you have no case.

Anyone can give their human opinion of what they feel is right or wrong. But no one can accuse the Church of a teaching that was never taught.

If it exists Produce it!

Show me where the Church was wrong in stating that Luther knows the will of the Holy Spirit with a human mind.

Show me where anyone can speak for the Holy Spirit and claim it is a true teaching of the Holy Spirit with human thinking.

The Pope himself and Bishops today can’t even do it. They have the Power to speak in the name of Christ only if its from the Holy Spirit.

Their personal belief or thinking is never said to be the mind of God.

And I agree with Luther that I don’'t believe humans can put humans to death. Which has nothing to do with what the word of God teaches.

The word of God says there will be an eternal fire and a temporal fire. Rather this eternal burning is a state or place is not the question. The fact there will be for some a temporal fire and burning and for some a eternal fire.

Read the Thesis. Heretics being burmed goes against the will of the Holy Spirit. That is what luther wrote. Show me where you Edwin or Myself, or Luther has the Power to speak for the Holy Spirit.

We have free will to believe or disbelieve but that does not mean we can speak for God. Show me where Luther has the right to state the will of the Holy Spirit.

 

[rinnie]

And no Edwin the Church never changed its mind.

It it was an infallible teaching of the RCC that came from the Holy Spirit that the RCC had the authority to burn human heretics at the stakes it would still be a teaching.

THe Holy Spirit does not lie nor change its mind. You are wrong not the Holy Spirit.

IF you read the original thread on this it was said it was doctrine or dogma of the faith. They could not prove it only accuse. So you prove it then.

The Church was also accused because the sins of leaders not stopping it, then the Church of Christ is responsible.

When is Christ held responsible through his Church for the human sins of its leaders.

How could God give leaders free will, and yet when they use it to do wrong or are accused of wrong it be the teachings of the RCC?

So I guess if the Pope goes off the deep end and starts blowing up abortion clinics and some people agree with him and some don’t its an infallible teaching of the RCC? Please.

 

[Topper17]

Luther never advocated that people should be burned for heresy. As far as I know he never advocated burning at all, and he never advocated executing people for heresy. I know that modern people find it hard to see the importance of the distinctions sixteenth-century people made between different reasons for killing people having to do with religious or other conviction, but the distinctions matter if you want to understand your ancestors instead of just using them as props for your propaganda.

Luther advocated execution for sedition–behavior that threatened the basis of society. He also, as you point out below, thought that people who denied the basic, common beliefs of Christianity were blasphemers and worthy of death. Everyone thought that, pretty much.

Hi Edwin,

I’m not really sure what your position is. Are you attempting to split hairs? The historical record is extremely clear. In the beginning, when Luther didn’t have any significant political support, as thought he was in danger of execution himself, THEN he was against the execution of heretics. 10 or 12 years later, when he was protected by the secular powers in his region, and when he was troubled by those who were teaching against his doctrines, then he suggested that ‘those people’ be executed if found guilty of sedition. Only a couple of years later, he raised the ante to include those who merely believed incorrectly. Of course, this was all very “Scriptural”.

As I said, the historical record is very clear. Maybe you recognize this but I can’t quite tell from your posts.

“If some were to teach doctrines contradicting an article of faith clearly grounded in Scripture and believed throughout the world by all Christendom, such as the articles we teach children in the Creed – for example, if anyone were to teach that Christ is not God, but a mere man and like other prophets, as the Turks and the Anabaptists hold – such teachers should not be tolerated, but punished as blasphemers . . .” Martin Luther, 1530, Commentary on the 82nd Psalm, Luther’s Works, Vol. 13, pg 61,)

As for what that “punishment” might entail:

• “That seditious articles of doctrine should be punished by the sword need no further proof. For the rest, the Anabaptists hold tenets relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration, which have no connection with the Word of God (as determined by Luther Himself of course), and are indeed opposed to it…Secular authorities are also bound to restrain and punish avowedly false doctrine (again as defined by Luther)…For think what a disaster would ensue if children were not baptized?..Besides this the Annabaptists separate themselves from the churches (Luther’s approved “churches” of course)…and they set up a ministry and congregation of their own (exactly as Luther did), which is also contrary to the command of God. From all this it becomes clear that the secular authorities are bound…to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders…Also when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then…we conclude that…the stubborn sectaries be put to death.”* Martin Luther, pamphlet of 1536; in Janssen, History of the German People from the Close of the Middle Ages, Vol, X, pg 223-3

“What now would happen if children were not baptized, if not that our whole society would become openly heathen? If then one holds only the articles in spiritual matters on infant baptism and original sin and unnecessary separation, because these articles are important, because it is a serious matter to cast children out of Christendom and to have two sets of people, the one baptized and the other unbaptized, because then the Anabaptists have some dreadful articles, we judge that in this case also the obstinate are to be put to death.” Martin Luther, Luther’s Works (WA, L, 12)

“In 1530 Luther advanced the view that two offences should be penalized even with death, namely sedition and blasphemy . . . Luther construed mere abstention from public office and military service as sedition and a rejection of an article of the Apostles’ Creed as blasphemy. In a memorandum of 1531, composed by Melanchthon and signed by Luther, a rejection of the ministerial office was described as insufferable blasphemy, and the disintegration of the Church as sedition against the ecclesiastical order. In a memorandum of 1536, again composed by Melanchthon and signed by Luther, the distinction between the peaceful and the revolutionary Anabaptists was obliterated.” Roland Bainton, “Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther”, pg 295

If all of this was so clear to Luther in his day, then where does that leave us in modern times?

God Bless You Edwin, Topper

 

[CrossofChrist]

And no Edwin the Church never changed its mind.

It it was an infallible teaching of the RCC that came from the Holy Spirit that the RCC had the authority to burn human heretics at the stakes it would still be a teaching.

Capital punishment is a just punishment for anyone who is a major threat to the common good. This is still teaching. And that was generally the justification for executing heretics too.

The difference is today (and one could/should argue back then, too) that executing heretics does much more damage to the common good than letting them believe in heresy. In fact, heresy can bring good to society by creating dialogue and helping us better uncover the truths of faith.

 

[rinnie]

And prove to me Edwin that you know the mind of every Church leader that was involved in the inquisition and that in their hearts they agreed with Roman Law.

And show me where many did not believe in their own heart that they could save more people by the inquisition by getting them to admit their wrongs, and return to the RCC. And that was the good intention in their heart, And when they could not get them to agree with the true word of God they felt they did deserved to die.

Times never seem to change one bad apples goes for the whole bag, and people continue to judge human heart.

I was taught that human sin is never right, but when you are judged on that human sin, God also knows what your true intention is, and judges your fairly.I never knew Humans could read the minds of humans and know what and why they did what they did.

I

 

[rinnie]

Capital punishment is a just punishment for anyone who is a major threat to the common good. This is still teaching. And that was generally the justification for executing heretics too.

The difference is today (and one could/should argue back then, too) that executing heretics does much more damage to the common good than letting them believe in heresy. In fact, heresy can bring good to society by creating dialogue and helping us better uncover the truths of faith.

Don’t you see it does not matter. The question is not defending Captial Punishment.

The root of this thread isn’t what the leaders did wrong, or us giving our personal opinion of it, or how we disagree with the Roman Law at that time.

And if you want to run a thread on human RCC leaders who sinned terribly we could go on until the second comming.

You are either going to defend your Church in the truth saying it was Church dogma that the CHurch could burn human heretics and it was a teaching of the Holy Spirit or you are not.

And you are either going to agree with people here that LUthers thesis was correct and speaking for the Holy Spirit can be done with a human mind. OR with the Pope is saying Luther cannot speak for the H,S. with a human mind.

 

[CrossofChrist]

You are either going to defend your Church in the truth saying it was Church dogma that the CHurch could burn human heretics and it was a teaching of the Holy Spirit or you are not.

I go with what the Church says. The issue here is I’m not really sure what this thread is about if capital punishment has no place.

And you are either going to agree with people here that LUthers thesis was correct and speaking for the Holy Spirit can be done with a human mind. OR with the Pope is saying Luther cannot speak for the H,S. with a human mind.

But how do we know that that’s what Luther meant? Is there any evidence that he thought he could read the mind of God? AFAIK there is none.

 

[rinnie]

We’ll never know why Martin Luther, or anyone for that matter, did or omit certain things.

My point exactly. While we are free to agree or disagree with that he did, we still do not have the right to judge his heart or mind.

We can make statements of what and why we felt he did it and could be right or could be way off. But we cannot say that we have the Power of the Holy Spirit to say our statements are the will of the Holy Spirit.

No one knows what God wills or does not will unless he tells us through the RCC by the power of the Holy Spirit.