Luther

[Bluegoat]

I don’t think there is any question that there would have been a Reformation even without Luther. Politically, nation-states were beginning to form, people were developing national identities, and their rulers were very tired of Rome controlling them. And it was not just on Spiritual issues, but political ones. It was a situation that couldn’t continue, and it was beginning to break out all over Europe before Luther was a factor.

And many of the hallmarks of Protestantism were also alive and growing in the population, and in some cases being harnessed by political powers to use against Rome.

The CC was culpable in this, they were very much focused on things that were not in line with Catholic morality or the role of a spiritual representative, and they consistently ignored real calls for reform and interpreted them only as political plays for power.

Eventually there were many of the needed reforms in the CC, but they were well behind where they should have been.

As for Luther, he had many good and bad qualities. I have never quite understood people dismissing him as a human being based upon some of his bad qualities which were not more monstrous than those of other famous religious figures - if we treated Catholic figures the same way, it would be equally unjust and people would object. There are Catholic Saints who suffered from sexual problems, pride, cruelty, difficulties with authority,etc, but are still rightly seen as servants of God.

Additionally, much of Luther’s very strong ant-Catholic rhetoric was well after things ad broken down entirely on both sides. I don’t think that is uncommon in such situations, and doesn’t generally reflect anyone’s initial intent. For a long time Luther showed every sign of wanting to be brought back into the fold.

And as far as saying he should have been content with the slow wheels of the Church. That is possibly true. However, if we say the same or equivalent abuses today in the Church, would we not feel the need to say something, loudly? And if we were told to shut up, toe the line, and retract our criticism and support the official position, or get out, what would we choose? I suspect many good Catholics would find it an almost impossible moral position. (What would any of us have done if told to shut up about the Residential Schools scandal and support the policy, or leave? Could we have supported it if we knew what was going on? Could we have kept quiet? All in the name of obedience? Because we couldn’t leave the True Church? Would it perhaps make us doubt that it was the True Church?)

Once things get to that point, it becomes difficult for anyone to turn back.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Luther, sadly (because he had remarkable talents), tarnished himself, as did Calvin et al. And no, the Church holds no “grudge;” but she must defend herself against the *relentless attacks *of heretics, something she has unfortunately had to do, not for five, but for twenty centuries!

I guess we all take objective facts and form whatever subjective ideas we might be predisposed to (or which ever support our respective interests).

First, you might notice I’m agnostic (meaning in my case, although I don’t say the idea of a god or being(s) who exists outside of our awareness is impossible, I view the claims made by the various world religions as false – with no doubts as to its falsity).

Therefore, I have no real stake in this debate (beyond my personal interest in history, particularly western history, and an increasing interest in the perceptions that drive opinion). So I think I can offer unbiased commentary (but I suspect anyone whom I disagree with will dispute that).

Luther and Calvin were far from perfect. Both, in my view, eventually became demagogues. The CC has made a cottage industry out of tarnishing these men. The idea is, obviously, how can we trust the opinion of unstable men?

However, in the first instance there is no indication either of these men were grossly unstable (although Luther seems more prone to this critique). Calvin was a lawyer, educated in Paris, Luther dropped out of law school (where he was a top performer) to pursue a career in the clergy. By any reasonable standard these were both accomplished men, insofar as their intellectual credentials. Indeed the CC thought Luther so qualified they sent him to school to pursue a doctorate in theology.

Leaving the theological issues aside (since I frankly believe the bible is so grossly inconsistent you almost have to be brainwashed not to acknowledge as much), as I see it the only way to fairly judge these men is to look at the objective facts we know to be true.

We know Johann Tetzel was appointed commissioner of indulgences by Pope Leo X. We also know that Tetzel used scare tactics and falsely issued certificates of release from purgatory; a clear exploitation of the poor and generally illiterate German people (primarily in Saxony). Therefore, whether or not Luther had a reasonable complaint should not be a matter of dispute. He clearly did.

Luther did write letters to his superiors prior to making his objections public. However, we also know Luther had many objections to Catholic doctrine beyond just indulgences; but notwithstanding the theological differences the culpability of the church, and its unwillingness to reform even though all levels of its leadership were clearly aware of its abuses, in itself provided a reasonable justification for the reformation (and a clear illustration that its claim of infallibility is objectively false).

Sure he did become a demagogue eventually, even antisemitic. Obviously I could point to all the Popes who were also demagogues (in many cases much worse than Luther), or the horrific history of antisemitism in the Catholic Church … and this is what this debate usually deteriorates to (generally because the trained Catholic response to Luther is logically fallacious ad hominem attacks).

Is Luther’s life to be immune from examination? Would you too prefer to keep certain facts about his life “hidden”? As for his “credibility,” I say simply: read the Fathers! Compare Luther’s (or Calvin’s, or any other self-appointed reformer’s teachings) to theirs.

not at all … frankly if I were a Lutheran or Calvinist I might be encouraged by Catholic attacks against these men. Sort of like when Reagan said (I’m paraphrasing) if the communists are saying bad things about me, I must be on the right track.

Ah yes, that old “corrupt popes” business! But never dare mention corrupt reformers! Alas. But FYI, there has, in fact, been *considerable *discussion of the papacy over the years, including discussions of so-called “bad popes.”

here’s where your credibility evaporates. You have a man, Pope Leo X, who is aware that his henchmen are using fear tactics to extort money out of poor illiterate people, manipulating their religious devotion; and you say “so called” bad popes (as if to minimize the betrayal and degree of corruption and immorality this represents)?

Never dare mention corrupt reformers? That’s all you guys do is talk about corrupt reformers (although I wouldn’t say they were corrupt, I think they became demagogues and, like the Catholic hierarchy, detached from objective reality).

That’s simply ridiculous! The Church has been more that forthright in admitting her faults! I suggest you read Pastor.

Yeah right.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Naturally you have not just placed a new scenerio here but carried out to include what is the right and wrong choices etc.
what you neglect to show is that after your successful revolution is that your own regime does not last becaue it is built on a basis of anarchy where everyone can decide right and wrong for themselves. So - Instead of replacing an “oppressive” regime built on sound and ancient principles, you have destroyed, not jus the Oppressors but the Principles as well.

Peace
James

really … well America still stands (and we were founded by revolution). The idea that mankind requires a self-interested institution to define right and wrong for it, or that an institution has a divine mandate to govern, are medieval ideas that grew up in an environment of illiteracy among the general population (in wonderful church supported environments like feudalism or absolutism where where the church justified the oppressive social structure).

For you to infer the intelligentsia of this country (and western society in general), who tend to be secular, somehow hold to a subjective and constantly changing set of moral principals is not only absurd, it’s either ignorant or an intentional misrepresentation of the truth.

Thomas Jefferson was a deist who held an obscure belief in a higher power, but rejected the idea that Jesus was a god (and viewed the supernatural claims made by scripture as mythological in nature). Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, Immanual Kant, Churchill, Voltaire, etc. Do any of these men strike you as holding to a subjective set of moral principals? You might like to know they all have one thing in common … none were theists in an orthodox sense.

 

[josie_L]

really … well America still stands (and we were founded by revolution). The idea that mankind requires a self-interested institution to define right and wrong for it, or that an institution has a divine mandate to govern, are medieval ideas that grew up in an environment of illiteracy among the general population (in wonderful church supported environments like feudalism or absolutism where where the church justified the oppressive social structure).

For you to infer the intelligentsia of this country (and western society in general), who tend to be secular, somehow hold to a subjective and constantly changing set of moral principals is not only absurd, it’s either ignorant or an intentional misrepresentation of the truth.

Thomas Jefferson was a deist who held an obscure belief in a higher power, but rejected the idea that Jesus was a god (and viewed the supernatural claims made by scripture as mythological in nature). Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, Immanual Kant, Churchill, Voltaire, etc. Do any of these men strike you as holding to a subjective set of moral principals? You might like to know they all have one thing in common … none were theists in an orthodox sense.

Wasn’t Thomas Jefferson a slave owner? And moreover how come the “enlightened” thinkers/revolutionaries of America didn’t abolish slavery then and there (it would have been nice to have put that into the constitution forthwith)?

 

[yankee_doodle]

Wasn’t Thomas Jefferson a slave owner? And moreover how come the “enlightened” thinkers/revolutionaries of America didn’t abolish slavery then and there (it would have been nice to have put that into the constitution forthwith)?

ahh the good old Catholic habit of ad hominem attacks (because let’s face it, with the mountain of facts against you, what else can you do). Anyway, perhaps we can compare the history of Catholics and slavery (and feudalism or absolutism) to the enlightenment thinkers? Thomas Paine (deist, author of the Age of Reason) was the earliest voice against slavery in the US. Immanuel Kant the first voice against slavery in Europe. The papacy, endorsed Portuguese and Spanish slavery (btw the Portuguese and Spanish were the innovators, in Europe anyway, of enslaving blacks). Sure, you could point Jefferson’s hypocrisy in owning slaves … but so what, that’s all you got.

I can show the pagan roots of Christianity and Judaism, I can show how secularization in the west has led to increased human rights, liberty, and living standards. What can you show? Jefferson owned slaves …

 

[Bluegoat]

Perhaps everyone should just swear off the ad hominum attacks on anybody, including my cat, for the rest of the thread. Then it would be possible to talk about the actual subject.

 

[josie_L]

ahh the good old Catholic habit of ad hominem attacks (because let’s face it, with the mountain of facts against you, what else can you do). Anyway, perhaps we can compare the history of Catholics and slavery (and feudalism or absolutism) to the enlightenment thinkers? Thomas Paine (deist, author of the Age of Reason) was the earliest voice against slavery in the US. Immanuel Kant the first voice against slavery in Europe. The papacy, endorsed Portuguese and Spanish slavery (btw the Portuguese and Spanish were the innovators, in Europe anyway, of enslaving blacks). Sure, you could point Jefferson’s hypocrisy in owning slaves … but so what, that’s all you got.

I can show the pagan roots of Christianity and Judaism, I can show how secularization in the west has led to increased human rights, liberty, and living standards. What can you show? Jefferson owned slaves …

You can’t handle the heat when it’s your own precious ideals (or heroes) under attack, can you?

p.s. The Portuguese and the Spanish were the “innovators” of enslaving blacks in Europe and yet everyone followed suit, hmmmm? I guess being the first makes you more evil than the last who practiced slavery. And only one pope in the two millenia that the Church has been in existence allowed slavery.

p.p.s. Do you really want to go another round with this?

 

[LondonIrish]

Perhaps everyone should just swear off the ad hominum attacks on anybody, including my cat, for the rest of the thread. Then it would be possible to talk about the actual subject.

Hello Bluegoat

I completely agree with you. I think it’s very important that people feel they are listened to, and that their points are addressed to the best of our ability. It’s important to respond to the issue without making judgement on the person raising the issue. That way conversation is encouraged, and the Holy Spirit may move someone to respond to the words of the writer, or it may encourage them further in their studies. In 45 years of activity in my church, I have never yet managed to attract someone to my catholic faith by telling them I am right and you are wrong, or you have worse pastors than we do. But by encouragement, patience, understanding and the guideance of the Holy Spirit, people can be drawn to find out more; when people come to the realisation they are in error themselves, that’s much more powerful and transforming than being dictated to they are wrong.

As for Luther, I don’t think he would have been completely satisfied even if the church had moved more quickly to address his legitimate concerns. I think he was well on his way to developing a theology that addressed his own lack of peace in his soul. But there is no doubt that both sides made very big errors, and as mentioned already, the social and political scene the church functioned in back then was very different than today. Once his thoughts reached a wide audience, they struck a note with many who were disillusioned with what the catholic church had become. Things at that point were always going to take on a life of their own. To answer the questions in the OP, yes, I think the church handled the situation badly, no I don’t think it could have been avoided, and no, I don’t think Luther was an instrument of God, at least not in the way, for example St. Francis was, or Saint Dominic.

 

[yankee_doodle]

You can’t handle the heat when it’s your own precious ideals (or heroes) under attack, can you?

p.s. The Portuguese and the Spanish were the “innovators” of enslaving blacks in Europe and yet everyone followed suit, hmmmm? I guess being the first makes you more evil than the last who practiced slavery. And only one pope in the two millenia that the Church has been in existence allowed slavery.

p.p.s. Do you really want to go another round with this?

sure I’ll go around with this all day long. The CC gave us the wonderful innovation of a papal bull endorsing slavery (giving the Portuguese and Spaniards license to enslave Africans). Notwithstanding the later retraction by the CC, the wheels were already irreversibly set in motion. The Spaniards were the first to introduce slavery to the new world. First enslaving Native Americans, then transporting Africans to North America.

Gee thanks (and I can’t handle the heat? Huh … man, I mean the delusion is bewildering )

 

[josie_L]

sure I’ll go around with this all day long. The CC gave us the wonderful innovation of a papal bull endorsing slavery (giving the Portuguese and Spaniards license to enslave Africans). Notwithstanding the later retraction by the CC, the wheels were already irreversibly set in motion. The Spaniards were the first to introduce slavery to the new world. First enslaving Native Americans, then transporting Africans to North America.

Gee thanks (and I can’t handle the heat? Huh … man, I mean the delusion is bewildering )

No, you’re delusional Yankee in believing that somehow the Spanish introduced slavery in the New World, have you so keenly forgotten the Aztecs who enslaved their enemies and then used them as sacrifices? And the Spanish and Portuguese were already practicing slavery before the first and only bull allowing slavery was issued; the predecessor of Pope Nicholas V (I believe it was) stated that anyone who was found trading humans would be excommunicated.

p.s. And this still doesn’t change the fact that Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner - a freedom lover, indeed.

 

[JRKH]

I don’t think there is any question that there would have been a Reformation even without Luther. Politically, nation-states were beginning to form, people were developing national identities, and their rulers were very tired of Rome controlling them. And it was not just on Spiritual issues, but political ones. It was a situation that couldn’t continue, and it was beginning to break out all over Europe before Luther was a factor.

And many of the hallmarks of Protestantism were also alive and growing in the population, and in some cases being harnessed by political powers to use against Rome.

The CC was culpable in this, they were very much focused on things that were not in line with Catholic morality or the role of a spiritual representative, and they consistently ignored real calls for reform and interpreted them only as political plays for power.

Eventually there were many of the needed reforms in the CC, but they were well behind where they should have been.

As for Luther, he had many good and bad qualities. I have never quite understood people dismissing him as a human being based upon some of his bad qualities which were not more monstrous than those of other famous religious figures - if we treated Catholic figures the same way, it would be equally unjust and people would object. There are Catholic Saints who suffered from sexual problems, pride, cruelty, difficulties with authority,etc, but are still rightly seen as servants of God.

Additionally, much of Luther’s very strong ant-Catholic rhetoric was well after things ad broken down entirely on both sides. I don’t think that is uncommon in such situations, and doesn’t generally reflect anyone’s initial intent. For a long time Luther showed every sign of wanting to be brought back into the fold.

This is all very well and succinctly said.
There is a tendency on both sides to “pidgonhole” things (and people) rather than looking at the whole picture. Many statements about Luther are like that. They don’t take into account the “progression” of his journey out of the Church, just as they don’t take into account the Political issues of the time.
As an example of what I mean - Think about this fro a moment. Scrooge gets NO credit for changing. How often do we label someone without taking into account their “Whole” life. The OP said something about Luther being a “Devout Catholic” and someone else took exception to that. Yet at one point in his life Luther WAS a devout Catholic. He just didn’t STAY that way.

And as far as saying he should have been content with the slow wheels of the Church. That is possibly true. However, if we say the same or equivalent abuses today in the Church, would we not feel the need to say something, loudly? And if we were told to shut up, toe the line, and retract our criticism and support the official position, or get out, what would we choose? I suspect many good Catholics would find it an almost impossible moral position. (What would any of us have done if told to shut up about the Residential Schools scandal and support the policy, or leave? Could we have supported it if we knew what was going on? Could we have kept quiet? All in the name of obedience? Because we couldn’t leave the True Church? Would it perhaps make us doubt that it was the True Church?)

Once things get to that point, it becomes difficult for anyone to turn back.

While I can readily see and agree that a catholic could be put in the position of having to conform or leave, ( I was away from the Church for many years) there is a HUGE difference between “sitting down and shutting up” and Starting a revolution such as he did.
Plus, while Church practice was an issue, Luther didn’t stop there bu attacked the Church’s Authority and the Proper understanding of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. Certainly He could have protested church practice (as others were as well) without declaring the Church had no authority and that All you needed was the Bible.

Peace
James

 

[yankee_doodle]

No, you’re delusional Yankee in believing that somehow the Spanish introduced slavery in the New World, have you so keenly forgotten the Aztecs who enslaved their enemies and then used them as sacrifices? And the Spanish and Portuguese were already practicing slavery before the first and only bull allowing slavery was issued; the predecessor of Pope Nicholas V (I believe it was) stated that anyone who was found trading humans would be excommunicated.

p.s. And this still doesn’t change the fact that Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner - a freedom lover, indeed.

1452 (June 18) Papal Bull Dum diversas. Pope Nicholas V authorized Afonso V of Portugal to reduce any Muslims, pagans, other unbelievers to perpetual slavery.

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Papal_bull

Romanus Pontifex[1] is a papal bull written January 8, 1455 by Pope Nicholas V to King Afonso V of Portugal. As a follow-up to the Dum Diversas, it confirmed to the Crown of Portugal dominion over all lands discovered or conquered during the Age of Discovery. Along with encouraging the seizure of the lands of “Saracens, pagans … and other enemies of Christ”, it repeated the earlier bull’s permission for the enslavement of such peoples. The bull’s primary purpose was to forbid other Christian nations from infringing the King of Portugal’s rights of trade and colonisation in these regions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanus_Pontifex

But those are only the tip of the iceberg. Here’s my favorite:

1252 (May 15) Papal Bull Ad exstirpanda. Pope Innocent IV: Authorized the use of torture for eliciting confessions from heretics, and authorized the execution of relapsed heretics by burning them alive during the Inquisition.

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Papal_bull

The first Europeans to use African slaves in the New World were the Spaniards who labourers on islands such as Cuba and Hispaniola, where the alarming decline in the native population had spurred the first royal laws protecting the native population (Laws of Burgos, 1512-1513). The first African slaves arrived in Hispaniola in 1501.[41]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

Guess who ruled Spain during that period? You guessed it, super-Catholic Ferdinand and Isabella (the Pope’s good friends). It was all one happy family. Their grandson, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, was heir of four of Europe’s leading dynasties, including the Hapsburgs and House of Argon (Catherine of Argon was Queen of England).

Business was good. Free labor, a freely flowing fountain of gold from the new world, rule over virtually all of Europe, and no one who would dare dissent (after two inquisitions, who could blame those poor saps).

Oh but let me guess, enslaving people isn’t a matter of faith & morals?

 

[JRKH]

First of all I must apologize for the brevity of my response. It was written hurridly and not overly well thought out. (My wife has health issues that require my attentions).
You raise some valid points based on my hurried response that I will address.

really … well America still stands (and we were founded by revolution). The idea that mankind requires a self-interested institution to define right and wrong for it, or that an institution has a divine mandate to govern, are medieval ideas that grew up in an environment of illiteracy among the general population (in wonderful church supported environments like feudalism or absolutism where where the church justified the oppressive social structure).

It’s interesting that you bring up the U.S. here. I was actually thinking of the French revolution as I as writing my response.
Yes the U.S. still stands after a successful revolution. But did you know that it does not stand in it’s original form? The first form of Governance was called the “Confederation of States”, and was ruled by the “Articles of Confederation.” The Central Government was very weak and the state governments were strong. After just a few years this was seen to be unworkable as issues were arising between the different states faster than could be dealt with. Therefore, the States met to “revise” the Articles and instead threw them out and wrote the “Constitution”.
The French revolution, largely inspired by the American, did not turn out so well. The Chaos that resulted from the overthrow of the monarchy was horrible to behold and had repurcussions that led to much bloodshed for many years.
I’m not sure where you got the Idea that I was espousing the need for some “divine” institution. You Got me there. (Scratching head)
What I was trying to do is relate your scenerio to what actually happened at the time of the reformation. It isn’t that Luther and the other reformers carved out a new territory or “realm”, that has lasted, (Like one might expect in a political revolution) Rather they founded a very loose confederation, and by basing it on “Private interpretation” and overthrowing the “Central Authority” they have provided, not a “reformed” governance or christianity, but rather a competing plethora of doctrines with no one able to sort them out.

While I am thinking about the U.S. governance etc. Let me place this before you.
The U.S. exists today only because it militarily defeated a revolution in 1865. If that revolution had been successful, and the South was permitted to secede, what do you think would have happened:
a) The next time a “union” state had a major beef with the Federal government at Washington, and
b) The next time a Confederate" State had a major beef with the Confederate government at Richmond.
I mean, if we are honest and consider this carefully, once the Authority of the Union was diminished by the validity of cessession being established, there would be little to hold the states together.
In a sense this is what has happened with the Protestant reformation.

For you to infer the intelligentsia of this country (and western society in general), who tend to be secular, somehow hold to a subjective and constantly changing set of moral principals is not only absurd, it’s either ignorant or an intentional misrepresentation of the truth.

Again, I may not have communicated well. I was infering that luther, by rejecting the Church’s Authority over the Bible in exchange for the idea of personal, “Spirit led” authority, he opened the door to anarchy.

Thomas Jefferson was a deist who held an obscure belief in a higher power, but rejected the idea that Jesus was a god (and viewed the supernatural claims made by scripture as mythological in nature). Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, Immanual Kant, Churchill, Voltaire, etc. Do any of these men strike you as holding to a subjective set of moral principals? You might like to know they all have one thing in common … none were theists in an orthodox sense.

This would be an interting discussion, but not on this thread and, I’m afraid, not by me for I am not well versed enough to take this topic on.

Peace
James

 

[josie_L]

1452 (June 18) Papal Bull Dum diversas. Pope Nicholas V authorized Afonso V of Portugal to reduce any Muslims, pagans, other unbelievers to perpetual slavery.

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Papal_bull

Romanus Pontifex[1] is a papal bull written January 8, 1455 by Pope Nicholas V to King Afonso V of Portugal. As a follow-up to the Dum Diversas, it confirmed to the Crown of Portugal dominion over all lands discovered or conquered during the Age of Discovery. Along with encouraging the seizure of the lands of “Saracens, pagans … and other enemies of Christ”, it repeated the earlier bull’s permission for the enslavement of such peoples. The bull’s primary purpose was to forbid other Christian nations from infringing the King of Portugal’s rights of trade and colonisation in these regions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanus_Pontifex

But those are only the tip of the iceberg. Here’s my favorite:

1252 (May 15) Papal Bull Ad exstirpanda. Pope Innocent IV: Authorized the use of torture for eliciting confessions from heretics, and authorized the execution of relapsed heretics by burning them alive during the Inquisition.

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Papal_bull

The first Europeans to use African slaves in the New World were the Spaniards who labourers on islands such as Cuba and Hispaniola, where the alarming decline in the native population had spurred the first royal laws protecting the native population (Laws of Burgos, 1512-1513). The first African slaves arrived in Hispaniola in 1501.[41]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

Guess who ruled Spain during that period? You guessed it, super-Catholic Ferdinand and Isabella (the Pope’s good friends). It was all one happy family. Their grandson, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, was heir of four of Europe’s leading dynasties, including the Hapsburgs and House of Argon (Catherine of Argon was Queen of England).

Business was good. Free labor, a freely flowing fountain of gold from the new world, rule over virtually all of Europe, and no one who would dare dissent (after two inquisitions, who could blame those poor saps).

These your words Yankee:

sure I’ll go around with this all day long. The CC gave us the wonderful innovation of a papal bull endorsing slavery (giving the Portuguese and Spaniards license to enslave Africans). Notwithstanding the later retraction by the CC, the wheels were already irreversibly set in motion. The Spaniards were the first to introduce slavery to the new world. First enslaving Native Americans, then transporting Africans to North America.

So how did the Spaniards introduce slavery into the new world when the Aztecs already had a head start?

 

[josie_L]

1452 (June 18) Papal Bull Dum diversas. Pope Nicholas V authorized Afonso V of Portugal to reduce any Muslims, pagans, other unbelievers to perpetual slavery.

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Papal_bull

Romanus Pontifex[1] is a papal bull written January 8, 1455 by Pope Nicholas V to King Afonso V of Portugal. As a follow-up to the Dum Diversas, it confirmed to the Crown of Portugal dominion over all lands discovered or conquered during the Age of Discovery. Along with encouraging the seizure of the lands of “Saracens, pagans … and other enemies of Christ”, it repeated the earlier bull’s permission for the enslavement of such peoples. The bull’s primary purpose was to forbid other Christian nations from infringing the King of Portugal’s rights of trade and colonisation in these regions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanus_Pontifex

But those are only the tip of the iceberg. Here’s my favorite:

1252 (May 15) Papal Bull Ad exstirpanda. Pope Innocent IV: Authorized the use of torture for eliciting confessions from heretics, and authorized the execution of relapsed heretics by burning them alive during the Inquisition.

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Papal_bull

The first Europeans to use African slaves in the New World were the Spaniards who labourers on islands such as Cuba and Hispaniola, where the alarming decline in the native population had spurred the first royal laws protecting the native population (Laws of Burgos, 1512-1513). The first African slaves arrived in Hispaniola in 1501.[41]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

Guess who ruled Spain during that period? You guessed it, super-Catholic Ferdinand and Isabella (the Pope’s good friends). It was all one happy family. Their grandson, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, was heir of four of Europe’s leading dynasties, including the Hapsburgs and House of Argon (Catherine of Argon was Queen of England).

Business was good. Free labor, a freely flowing fountain of gold from the new world, rule over virtually all of Europe, and no one who would dare dissent (after two inquisitions, who could blame those poor saps).

Oh but let me guess, enslaving people isn’t a matter of faith & morals?

What individual Christians did will be judged by God, but how all this information affects the theology/truth preached by the Catholic Church is still a mystery?

 

[GKC]

1452 (June 18) Papal Bull Dum diversas. Pope Nicholas V authorized Afonso V of Portugal to reduce any Muslims, pagans, other unbelievers to perpetual slavery.

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Papal_bull

Romanus Pontifex[1] is a papal bull written January 8, 1455 by Pope Nicholas V to King Afonso V of Portugal. As a follow-up to the Dum Diversas, it confirmed to the Crown of Portugal dominion over all lands discovered or conquered during the Age of Discovery. Along with encouraging the seizure of the lands of “Saracens, pagans … and other enemies of Christ”, it repeated the earlier bull’s permission for the enslavement of such peoples. The bull’s primary purpose was to forbid other Christian nations from infringing the King of Portugal’s rights of trade and colonisation in these regions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanus_Pontifex

But those are only the tip of the iceberg. Here’s my favorite:

1252 (May 15) Papal Bull Ad exstirpanda. Pope Innocent IV: Authorized the use of torture for eliciting confessions from heretics, and authorized the execution of relapsed heretics by burning them alive during the Inquisition.

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Papal_bull

The first Europeans to use African slaves in the New World were the Spaniards who labourers on islands such as Cuba and Hispaniola, where the alarming decline in the native population had spurred the first royal laws protecting the native population (Laws of Burgos, 1512-1513). The first African slaves arrived in Hispaniola in 1501.[41]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

Guess who ruled Spain during that period? You guessed it, super-Catholic Ferdinand and Isabella (the Pope’s good friends). It was all one happy family. Their grandson, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, was heir of four of Europe’s leading dynasties, including the Hapsburgs and House of Argon (Catherine of Argon was Queen of England).

Business was good. Free labor, a freely flowing fountain of gold from the new world, rule over virtually all of Europe, and no one who would dare dissent (after two inquisitions, who could blame those poor saps).

Oh but let me guess, enslaving people isn’t a matter of faith & morals?

Delete. Misread, and inaccurate reply.

GKC

 

[yankee_doodle]

What individual Christians did will be judged by God, but how all this information affects the theology/truth preached by the Catholic Church is still a mystery?

some truth? Believe or burn

now I see what they mean by “pillar of fire”

 

[Bluegoat]

While I can readily see and agree that a catholic could be put in the position of having to conform or leave, ( I was away from the Church for many years) there is a HUGE difference between “sitting down and shutting up” and Starting a revolution such as he did.
Plus, while Church practice was an issue, Luther didn’t stop there bu attacked the Church’s Authority and the Proper understanding of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. Certainly He could have protested church practice (as others were as well) without declaring the Church had no authority and that All you needed was the Bible.

Peace
James

My suspicion is that he was so shaken that he came to the conclusion that the RC Church just couldn’t be the True Church. If that were true, then his moral obligations would have changed, since it would then be an institution claiming an authority it didn’t actually posses, one that properly belongs elsewhere.

I suspect that his emphasis on the Bible was a way of compensating for the loss of a central authority, which he (rightly) didn’t claim for himself. And in practice, Luther was still very much influenced by tradition, which made the Bible look to him like a very coherent document without that central authority. And in fact, even today Lutherans still look to Church Tradition to interpret the Bible. I am not sure that properly protected, that principle would not have held up - the big problem is other Protestants, unlike Luther and largely unrelated to him, did not see themselves as a continuation of the Church and as part of the Tradition.

People often seem to miss that the Reformation was not one great movement, or really even begun by one person. There were other reformers working completely independently of Luther, with different ideas.

An interesting note that many don’t know is that there was some attempt by the Lutherans to come to an understanding with the Orthodox. It didn’t work out, but it is indicative of their desire to remain part of a historical process and unity.

 

[josie_L]

some truth? Believe or burn

now I see what they mean by “pillar of fire”

Yes, that’s how we the CC got all our converts, with the “believe or burn” them approach.

 

[JRKH]

some truth? Believe or burn

now I see what they mean by “pillar of fire”

Can this tit-for-tat be ended? It adds nothing to the discussion.

Many bad things happened during the Reformation. Many died - Killed by BOTH sides saying “believe or burn”.

This continual tendancy of blaming the other is of no use 500 years on. Dialog should bring us closer to God and not further from Him.

Peace
James