Luther-Bashing is Anti-Catholic

[steido01]

If I bear false witness against my neighbor, even if he’s been dead for hundreds of years, I am not loving him. I say let the people in church history be exactly who they were, warts and all. Luther certainly had warts and sins, but he did not “kick the cat” as well on the way to posting the 95 Theses.

Emperor Charles V set the tone, I believe, for dialogue going forward. When he conquered a majority of the Lutheran lands and began re-imposing many Roman Catholic practices, his army came to the place where Luther’s body rested. His generals asked whether Luther should be exhumed, or at least have his grave defiled. He responded, “No. My quarrel is with the living, not the dead.”

If only folks today shared the view of that Roman Catholic ruler.

 

[steve-b]

Both of those are less ‘conversation,’ and more ‘condemnation.’

One literally calls the burning of heretics the will of the Spirit.

Have you never seen the answer to THAT?

Is the HS NOT involved in the following judgement and condemnation?

. Matthew 18:8 RSVCE - And if your hand or your foot causes - Bible Gateway

. Matthew 25:41 RSVCE - Then he will say to those at his left - Bible Gateway

. Jude 1:7 RSVCE - just as Sodom and Gomor′rah and the - Bible Gateway

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

guanophore, Just a few highlights and a correction

considering the times: Leo and Luther—The Real Story of the Pope and the Heretic | Catholic Answers

My apologies for jumping in- I skimmed through this link written by Steve Weidenkopf. He asserts, “Although Luther’s 95 Theses contained multiple heretical opinions, the most dangerous was his rejection of papal authority.” Since you posted the link, would you be willing to elaborate which part of the 95 Theses Mr. Weidenkopf has in mind?

It’s generally understood that at the time of the posting of the 95 Theses, Luther had not rejected papal authority. …
Thanks in advance.

As I posted to guanophore, here is the progression of thought between Pope Leo and Luther.

Exsurge Domine, Bull of Leo X http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10exdom.htm Look at error #25

then came

Decet Romanum Pontificem http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10decet.htm

 

[steido01]

Neither of those answers TertiumQuid’s questions, especially in light of the fact “that at the time of the posting of the 95 Theses, Luther had not rejected papal authority.”

I’m genuinely interested in your answer here, as it was the act of burning Exsurge Domine that most historians mark as Luther’s jettisoning of papal authority. The 95 Thesis simply don’t fight against papal authority. They would seem, rather, to appeal to it.

 

[steve-b]

Pope Leo, and any number of corrupt Popes, could not sully the Body of Christ.

Feel free to come back and give me “correction” again after you have studied the Medici family.

As I already posted to you
Here is the progression of thought between Leo and Luther

Exsurge Domine, Bull of Leo X http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10exdom.htm this is a list of Luther’s errors

then came the consequences due to Luther ignoring Leo

Decet Romanum Pontificem http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10decet.htm

 

[steido01]

Are we to conclude that burning painfully and agonizingly at the stake = the eternal fire?

Has the Roman Catholic Church changed its view on the death penalty since then? I thought the Church is opposed to capital punishment?

 

[steve-b]

Are we to conclude that burning painfully and agonizingly at the stake = the eternal fire?

Where is burning at the stake, mentioned or supported in Exsurge Domine? As I recall, scripture condemns heretics, and thereofore when they die, if they haven’t repented, the go to hell. The eternal fire.

steido01:

Has the Roman Catholic Church changed its view on the death penalty since then? I thought the Church is opposed to capital punishment?

It is.

The Church has no control over the state, however.

 

[steve-b]

Neither of those answers TertiumQuid’s questions, especially in light of the fact "that at the time of the posting of the 95 Theses, “Luther had not rejected papal authority.”

Exsurge Domine, Bull of Leo X http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10exdom.htm Look at error #25 and following

 

[steido01]

Hold up. The original question, paraphrased from this post, was:

Which part of the 95 Theses rejects papal authority?

In response, you posted a link to Exsurge Domine, which was written by Pope Leo X in 1520, approximately 3 years after the 95 Theses were posted in 1517. This does not explain where Luther rejected papal authority. Especially since most historians mark Luther’s burning of that Bull (which happened after it was written ) as his first real act of defying papal authority.

So, again, please explain how the 95 Theses rejected papal authority? Otherwise, please explain how a Pope saying something years later mean that Luther said it years earlier?

This brings to mind one of the biggest complaints of Luther and the early Lutherans - that the Roman authorities weren’t even listening to the actual objections raised. We see this right from the get-go at Worms. The papal authorities demanded Luther recant all of his works. But that would’ve included “good” stuff that even his adversaries used, so he refused. The authorities didn’t want to waste time with a discussion on which works were good, or which works were bad. They just wanted Luther to kiss Papa’s ring and go away. Or die. That would’ve worked, too. No conversation. Just condemnation.

 

[guanophore]

This brings to mind one of the biggest complaints of Luther and the early Lutherans - that the Roman authorities weren’t even listening to the actual objections raised. We see this right from the get-go at Worms. The papal authorities demanded Luther recant all of his works. But that would’ve included “good” stuff that even his adversaries used, so he refused. The authorities didn’t want to waste time with a discussion on which works were good, or which works were bad. They just wanted Luther to kiss Papa’s ring and go away. Or die. That would’ve worked, too. No conversation. Just condemnation.

It brings to mind the Sanhedrin lashing the Apostles and telling them not to teach. I think this method probably worked in most, if not all, cases that reached that level, but the Sanhedrin did not understand the power of what they were facing, any more than the Diet of Worms did. The pebble had already dislodged the avalanche, and it was even too late for renouncing his works to be effective. In any case, it was not a fair request, as they were unwilling to accept the parts of his writings that were not contrary to Church Teaching.

 

[guanophore]

Can you substantiate this, at least the Catholics writing part?

I could, but it is off the thread topic. There has been a lot of anti-Semitism in Catholic history. Luther was steeped in it. He was raised Catholic, attended Catholic seminary, was a monk in a Catholic order, went to Catholic college and obtained his doctoral letters from Catholic institution. Some responsibility for his spiritual formation falls to the CC.

There is a clear distinction between ‘behavior’ and doctrine; and, when a Christian mixes ‘bad behavior’ with erroneous doctrine in writing, you expose it, when necessary, in the most charitable and gentle way possible to inform, not to ‘bash’.

I suppose this might be necessary in some cases, but Luther was not trying to make doctrine when he wrote Of the Jews and Their Lies, and even if he had been, his followers did not accept it as such. At this point, it is time to work to heal the wounds to unity, and pouring salt into them is really not going to do that. It will be more effective to focus on what Lutherans believe TODAY that is keeping them from unity with the successor of Peter.

There is no such thing as ‘The Lutheran Church’. There are hundreds of different Lutheran ecclesial communities in which very few confess the AC.

This is a sad fact.

Of course the AC has nothing about Luther’s filth, that is the whole problem; many Lutheran pastors (I have had personal experience with this) do not want anyone to know the majority of Luther’s works because their knowledge of these works and their silence will instantly discredit them.

Interesting. It must be difficult to have ones credibility standing upon such a fragile foundation.

However, that is just one of his works; there are plenty that comingles theology with his obsession with the devil, human excrement, and foul language. Read Luther’s Hans Wurst published in 1541 and ask yourself if that writing is merely ‘bad behavior’.

As opposed to what?

There are times when I think an exploration into Luther’s other writings might be useful. Personally, I would be ashamed to call myself after someone that behaved as he did. I am just not convinced it is an effective apologetic method.

However, when the topic of his works comes up (viz. this thread), we are obliged, in the most ecumenical way, to expose the truth of his works and let the Lutheran decide how to evaluate them.

Did you think the OP was bringing up Luther’s works for discussion?

 

[steve-b]

Hold up. The original question, paraphrased from this post, was:

Which part of the 95 Theses rejects papal authority?

From: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/the-95-theses-8-things-to-know-and-share

1. How did the Church respond to The 95 Theses?
   In 1520, Pope Leo X published a bull known as Exsurge Domine (Latin, “Arise, Lord”) in which he rejected 41 propositions taken from the writings of Martin Luther up to that time.
   However, only a few of the rejected propositions came from The 95 Theses. Most were based on things Luther said in other writings.
2. Which of The 95 Theses did Exsurge Domine reject?
   The rejected propositions in Exsurge Domine are formulated from things Luther said, but they are not verbatim quotations.
   Three of the rejected propositions—numbers 4, 17, and 38—are drawn from The 95 Theses. In each case, the rejected proposition is based on two of Luther’s original theses.
   Here are the rejected propositions along with the corresponding theses:
   Proposition 4. To one on the point of death, imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory and impedes entrance into the kingdom.
   Thesis 14. Imperfect piety or love on the part of the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater the fear.
   Thesis 15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, to say nothing of other things, to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near the horror of despair.
   Proposition 17. The treasures of the Church from which the pope gives indulgences are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.
   Thesis 56. The treasures of the church, out of which the pope distributes indulgences, are not sufficiently discussed or known among the people of Christ.
   Thesis 58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, for, even without the pope, the latter always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outer man.
   Proposition 38. The souls in purgatory are not sure of their salvation, at least (not) all; nor is it proved by any arguments or by the Scriptures that they are beyond the state of meriting or of increasing in charity.
   Thesis 19. Nor does it seem proved that souls in purgatory, at least not all of them, are certain and assured of their own salvation, even if we ourselves may be entirely certain of it.
   Thesis 18. Furthermore, it does not seem proved, either by reason or Scripture, that souls in purgatory are outside the state of merit, that is, unable to grow in love.
   Exsurge Domine thus rejected things it saw expressed in theses 14, 15, 18, 19, 56, and 58…

 

[guanophore]

But, that does not mean that error and coarseness should just be forgotten altogether and the Canons of the Council of Trent expunged.

Did you think I was suggesting any such thing?!

However, when the topic of his works comes up (viz. this thread), we are obliged, in the most ecumenical way, to expose the truth of his works and let the Lutheran decide how to evaluate them.

Luther-Bashing is Anti-Catholic Non-Catholic Religions

Over the last 50 years, in fact, since Vatican 2, the Catholic Church has openly worked towards repairing the breach with the Lutheran branch of Christendom. Pope Francis recently visited Lund. The 500th anniversary of the Reformation was commemorated. Pope Benedict visited Wittenberg. Nice things have been said about Luther to Protestants. It is also true his excommunication has not been lifted. Luther-bashing serves to widen and deepen the wounds in the body of Christ. It is clearly agai…

I don’t think this thread was about his “filthy works”, I think it just descended there. On the contrary, I think the OP seemed to be pointing toward ecumenism, charity, and unity. It seems to be a difficult subject for Catholics, as there is some centrifugal force that spins us into “Luther Bashing”.

But, again, doctrinal error is doctrinal error, and filth is filth, and when Luther and his works are brought up, the truth must be exposed; no spin, no commentary, no judgment, no insinuating…just quoting his works verbatim for the Lutheran to read and decide.

I don’t disagree with your point, but it did not seem that the purpose of the thread was to discuss his works, but rather, the way that Catholics have a knee jerk reaction about Luther that seems to make us want to point the finger at his shortcomings.

Who said pope Leo didn’t take Luther seriously? Multiple attempts took place to have discussion with Luther. Luther wouldn’t have any part of it.

I am sure he did as the problem progressed and became bigger, but at the beginning, the instruction was to soothe and quiet him, rather than really give an ear to his concerns. Don’t get me wrong, I think the outcome would likely have been the same - Luther has lost respect for the hierarchy as far back as his journey to Rome. His observations during his “pilgrimage” seemed to permanently sour him.

Luther certainly had warts and sins, but he did not “kick the cat” as well on the way to posting the 95 Theses.

He did not hold back on criticism of the Pope, either. His language sounds disdainful and cynical.

He responded, “No. My quarrel is with the living, not the dead.”

If only folks today shared the view of that Roman Catholic ruler.

Let us pray that our minds and hearts will be conformed to the will of the Spirit, which I do not think is the burning of our siblings in Christ!

 

[guanophore]

As I posted to guanophore, here is the progression of thought between Pope Leo and Luther.

I think there might be some huge chunks of chapters missing from your history book.
The interaction between Luther and the Pope did not begin with Exsurge Domine. That is how it ended!

Has the Roman Catholic Church changed its view on the death penalty since then? I thought the Church is opposed to capital punishment?

Not entirely, though recent teaching has indicated that it is not necessary, since it is technologically possible now to protect society by separating persons that in the past may have best served the greater good with their deaths.

So, again, please explain how the 95 Theses rejected papal authority? Otherwise, please explain how a Pope saying something years later mean that Luther said it years earlier?

I am not sure he has even read the 95 Theses.

How did the Church respond to The 95 Theses?

What you have posted, @steve-b, is actually support for the other side of the argument. Rather than responding with dialogue, the Pope sent envoys, first to try to “soothe and quiet” Luther, then later to put him on trial. The trial ended with the Ecclesial authorities demanding that Luther renounce all his works, including those that were not contradictory to the Church teaching. Those who were sent to silence him did not even read all of his work or care to listen to his arguments. It was not so much a dialog as it was an ultimatim. You are right, the Pope did respond to Luther with Exsurge Domine, but this was years later and related much more to publications and events that occurred AFTER the 95 Theses (which were mild in comparison). If you want to throw the 95 Theses out in a thread such as this, it might be beneficial to read them.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

As I posted to guanophore, here is the progression of thought between Pope Leo and Luther.

I think there might be some huge chunks of chapters missing from your history book.
The interaction between Luther and the Pope did not begin with Exsurge Domine. That is how it ended!

How did the Church respond to The 95 Theses?

guanophore:

What you have posted, @steve-b, is actually support for the other side of the argument. Rather than responding with dialogue, the Pope sent envoys, first to try to “soothe and quiet” Luther, then later to put him on trial. The trial ended with the Ecclesial authorities demanding that Luther renounce all his works, including those that were not contradictory to the Church teaching. Those who were sent to silence him did not even read all of his work or care to listen to his arguments. It was not so much a dialog as it was an ultimatim. You are right, the Pope did respond to Luther with Exsurge Domine, but this was years later and related much more to publications and events that occurred AFTER the 95 Theses (which were mild in comparison). If you want to throw the 95 Theses out in a thread such as this, it might be beneficial to read them.

Luther wouldn’t talk to the pope. So How is Leo to blame?

this response explained the 95 theses, wasn’t the only reference to Leo’s response to Luther. Luther-Bashing is Anti-Catholic - #378 by steve-b

 

[guanophore]

Luther wouldn’t talk to the pope. So How is Leo to blame?

Did I say something that led you to believe I was blaming the Pope? Realistically, Luther was a small peon from the point of view of Leo. He was a complaining academic in a small town parish. Leo did what any leader should do, which is to have the ecclesiastical representatives of the region address his issues.

If I have a complaint about the way the United States is running, that does not qualify me to have an audience with the president. I should start locally, which is where Luther started. He took his concerns to the local Bishop.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Luther wouldn’t talk to the pope. So How is Leo to blame?

Did I say something that led you to believe I was blaming the Pope?

Calling Leo X corrupt is a start.

. Luther-Bashing is Anti-Catholic - #365 by steve-b

. Luther-Bashing is Anti-Catholic - #371 by steve-b

guanophore:

Realistically, Luther was a small peon from the point of view of Leo. He was a complaining academic in a small town parish. Leo did what any leader should do, which is to have the ecclesiastical representatives of the region address his issues.

If I have a complaint about the way the United States is running, that does not qualify me to have an audience with the president. I should start locally, which is where Luther started. He took his concerns to the local Bishop.

That seems to contradict what you said in your 2 posts I provided above.

 

[JonNC]

Can you substantiate this, at least the Catholics writing part? The only thing on this thread that has been posted were a measly two obscure quotes from Eck that were not ‘the same in anti-semitic diatribe’.

Only measly and obscure for those wishing to defend Catholics for Catholicism’s sake. The double standard is excruciating. Fortunately, there are Catholics who are honest about it.

 

[AugustTherese]

Only measly and obscure for those wishing to defend Catholics for Catholicism’s sake

Nope. Urging the mass killing of Jews and the burning of their synagogues is not comparable to what you ‘quoted’.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Only measly and obscure for those wishing to defend Catholics for Catholicism’s sake

Nope. Urging the mass killing of Jews and the burning of their synagogues is not comparable to what you ‘quoted’.

Denying the truth because he was Catholic is sad.