Luther's Break with the CC-When

[Anna_Scott]

No
Everyone also leaves out the political aspect taking place in Germany.
The northern princes embraced Luther in opposition to the Holy Roman Emperor.
There was too much to gain

You are right about that. It was a complicated point in history. Religion, power, politics–all played a role in the way things played out. There were abuses going on in the Catholic Church; but then Luther was no saint either. He was a tortured man in many regards, as much of his writing reveals.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . .Note: Please this is not for debate…just for some historical views and facts. Thanks.

Hi pablope,
Great expectation; but it doesn’t usually work out that way.

 

[Taestron]

No
Everyone also leaves out the political aspect taking place in Germany.
The northern princes embraced Luther in opposition to the Holy Roman Emperor.
There was too much to gain

I actually think Frederick the Wise (Luther’s protector) gets a bad rap in this situation. The Protestant Reformation continually proved itself prone to iconoclasm. Frederick the Wise was the biggest collector (or was it second biggest?) of religious icons and statues in all of Europe. The money he stood to lose by continuing to back Luther had a good chance of eliminating one of the biggest sources of income and thus power. I, for one, think that Frederick actually believed in Luther’s reformation. I’m not saying that the increased power would have appealed to Frederick, but I think that the political maneuvering is somewhat overemphasized by modern historians.

 

[bobcrawford]

Are you really Catholic?

Yes, my whole life. Even a member of K of C.

 

[pablope]

No
Everyone also leaves out the political aspect taking place in Germany.
The northern princes embraced Luther in opposition to the Holy Roman Emperor.
There was too much to gain

Hi, Gus…did you instead mean too much to lose if they did not side with Luther?

It indeed was a complicated time. But if there had been cooler heads…the resulting “chaos” may not have been what tempered somewhat…of course, now we have hindsight…

 

[pablope]

Hi pablope,
Great expectation; but it doesn’t usually work out that way.

Hi Anna…yes it always does…

 

[austenbosten]

Politics did not play a role until after the German Peasant’s War, until that time Luther was just another popular and charismatic heretic who should be burned at the stake. No one wanted to be around Luther the man was toxic and Charles V of the HRE wanted Luther gone as Charles was a Catholic.

However Frederick the Wise kept Luther protected and long enough for Luther to appear at the Diet of Worms and cause an even bigger firestorm that pushed others to join Luther in protest but in a much more radical fashion. Those men like Thomas Muntzer, I would say were proto-Marxists because they intertwined class-struggle with religion and made the Catholic Church the enemy of man. This sparked the peasants war and now many rulers in Germany were given a choice, side with the Church and the Emperor which would lead to more problems with the peasants or side with the peasants and lose everything, or side with Luther who wanted more control to go to the rulers and not to the Church. This made Luther popular with the nobles who were ruling their own little fiefdoms in Germany, but not with the Emperor in which an alliance with the Catholic Church was still beneficial to him because there would be unity.

So on the politics side it was the Emperor and the Church, versus the rulers and Luther…with a bunch of radical proto-Marxists and peasants thrown in.

 

[rinnie]

Yes, but you will never get Catholics to admit there was corruption in the Church. With the “The Church said it, that’s the way it is” crowd, the Church can never be wrong or do wrong…oh, let me add, on matters of faith. So then you get into arguments on what are matters of faith. Those that do not fit, are never matters of faith. Geez, it’s a can of worms.

Really? Thats odd. The devil has been trying to tear down the Church actually even before the true Church began in the times of Jesus.

If one of the Apostles could give into the devil even with Jesus walking this earth, what makes you think that many of the teachers of Christ today could not give into evil also?

 

[bobcrawford]

Really? Thats odd. The devil has been trying to tear down the Church actually even before the true Church began in the times of Jesus.

If one of the Apostles could give into the devil even with Jesus walking this earth, what makes you think that many of the teachers of Christ today could not give into evil also?

Thanks you helped make my point. Christ Church can never be inherently corrupt and the gates of Hell can never prevail against it.

But as you imply, people in the Church can be sinful, corrupt or simply make bad decisions based on incorrect information.

Reading some of the posts on this board, I get the impression from many Catholics who hold the position that the Church said it, so no one can dispute it, mentality that they will never admit the Church, through the mortals who run it, that it can never make a mistake or be wrong about anything.

It’s not tearing it down, its trying to make it better.

 

[pablope]

Politics did not play a role until after the German Peasant’s War, until that time Luther was just another popular and charismatic heretic who should be burned at the stake. No one wanted to be around Luther the man was toxic and Charles V of the HRE wanted Luther gone as Charles was a Catholic.

However Frederick the Wise kept Luther protected and long enough for Luther to appear at the Diet of Worms and cause an even bigger firestorm that pushed others to join Luther in protest but in a much more radical fashion. Those men like Thomas Muntzer, I would say were proto-Marxists because they intertwined class-struggle with religion and made the Catholic Church the enemy of man. This sparked the peasants war and now many rulers in Germany were given a choice, side with the Church and the Emperor which would lead to more problems with the peasants or side with the peasants and lose everything, or side with Luther who wanted more control to go to the rulers and not to the Church. This made Luther popular with the nobles who were ruling their own little fiefdoms in Germany, but not with the Emperor in which an alliance with the Catholic Church was still beneficial to him because there would be unity.

So on the politics side it was the Emperor and the Church, versus the rulers and Luther…with a bunch of radical proto-Marxists and peasants thrown in.

Thanks again…Austen…you give more material to read and research.

Where in the time between the posting of the 95 These and the issuance of Exurge Domine does the Pheasant War fit in?

How did this affect the committee that looked at Luther’s writings/teachings prior to teh issuance of Exurge Domine?

 

[rinnie]

Thanks you helped make my point. Christ Church can never be inherently corrupt and the gates of Hell can never prevail against it.

But as you imply, people in the Church can be sinful, corrupt or simply make bad decisions based on incorrect information.

Reading some of the posts on this board, I get the impression from many Catholics who hold the position that the Church said it, so no one can dispute it, mentality that they will never admit the Church, through the mortals who run it, that it can never make a mistake or be wrong about anything.

It’s not tearing it down, its trying to make it better.

Well if you take that quote into the true context of the teaching the Catholic’s who hold the position that the Church said it no one can dispute it are in complete line with the teaching of Jesus Christ himself.

Jesus told his Apostles I am sending the Advocate the Holy Spirit to speak in my name. If the Pope or Bishops speak in the name of the Holy Spirit, it is indeed what the Church speaks cannot be disputed.

Do you agree that Jesus was correct when he said no one can overpower him and speak in his name and lie? Is so, then should you not be one like myself may I add that when the Church speaks it in the voice of the Holy Spirit the way God promised its the truth?

 

[rinnie]

Thanks you helped make my point. Christ Church can never be inherently corrupt and the gates of Hell can never prevail against it.

But as you imply, people in the Church can be sinful, corrupt or simply make bad decisions based on incorrect information.

Reading some of the posts on this board, I get the impression from many Catholics who hold the position that the Church said it, so no one can dispute it, mentality that they will never admit the Church, through the mortals who run it, that it can never make a mistake or be wrong about anything.

It’s not tearing it down, its trying to make it better.

Let me put this another way to be more clear. If the Church said it?? Are you saying if the Pope and Biships speak in the name of God, and thats the Church saying it? Well then its the truth,

Many people say the Pope can speak in the name of Christ and be wrong Puts them in a bad way does it not. They are saying then the Pope can trump GOD!

Not possble! So when the Pope speaks in the name of God, its the truth! Simple as that .

 

[tabycat]

Yes, but you will never get Catholics to admit there was corruption in the Church. With the “The Church said it, that’s the way it is” crowd, the Church can never be wrong or do wrong…oh, let me add, on matters of faith. So then you get into arguments on what are matters of faith. Those that do not fit, are never matters of faith. Geez, it’s a can of worms.

Some Catholics may not admit that there is corruption in the Church, just as some non-Catholics maly not admit that the Church is completly corrupte. They are both wrong. Even in Luther’s day there were Catholics working to clean up the corruption that they saw in the Church. :nun2::harp:

 

[pablope]

Thanks again…Austen…you give more material to read and research.

Where in the time between the posting of the 95 These and the issuance of Exurge Domine does the Pheasant War fit in?

How did this affect the committee that looked at Luther’s writings/teachings prior to teh issuance of Exurge Domine?

OOpppss…just read about the Pheasant War…it started in 1524…after Luther had been excommunicated.

 

[Taestron]

Thanks again…Austen…you give more material to read and research.

Where in the time between the posting of the 95 These and the issuance of Exurge Domine does the Pheasant War fit in?

How did this affect the committee that looked at Luther’s writings/teachings prior to teh issuance of Exurge Domine?

95 theses: 1517
Exsurge Domine: June 1520
Luther’s excommunication: January 1521
Peasant’s war: ~1524-1526

I’m not sure why Austen says politics does not play a role until the peasant’s revolt. By then Luther was long excommunicated and being protected by Frederick the Wise. The politics that people see with Frederick is that he was an elector of the Holy Roman Emperor, and as Charles V was getting old, having a popular preacher in his pocket would grant Frederick more power going into the election. The Peasants Wars were fueled IMHO by the radical reformers who took Luther’s concepts into proto-Marxian ideas. This might have been a foreseen consequence of Luther’s teaching, but other than that, it was too far in the future to be a consideration for his excommunication.

However, the Church took serious the threat Luther presented since he posted the 95 theses on the cathedral door. Johann Eck debated with Luther on the subject of Penance in Leipzig in 1518, and in 1519 Bishop (later Cardinal) Cajetan evaluated Luther’s position on behalf of Charles V and ruled against him. These debates and diets seem to indicate the Luther would hold to his views despite the wishes of the Church and thus you might say that he was broken from the Church in all but name during these years.

 

[Contarini]

Hi to all…especially the Luther experts…

When did Luther’s break with the CC actually occur? Can the the date be penned (or approximate year)?

And what was the final/main reason for the split/break?

Pablope

Note: Please this is not for debate…just for some historical views and facts. Thanks.

It depends on how you define the “split/break.” On Rome’s side, the obvious moment would be the bull of excommunication issued on Jan. 3, 1521. On Luther’s side, the obvious formal act would be his burning of the earlier bull Exsurge Domine, which threatened excommunication. Luther burned that bull on Dec. 10, 1520.

As late as October of the same year, Luther had sent the Pope a copy of his treatise Freedom of a Christian and dedicated the work to him in a fascinating letter which you can read here. Luther professes personal respect for the Pope, but declares that the “Court of Rome” is hopelessly corrupt and that the office of the papacy, understood as Leo’s “flatterers” understand it, is Antichrist. He blames Eck for bringing him to this open attack on Rome by forcing Luther into a debate on papal authority at Leipzig in 1519. In other words, Eck had forced Luther into a corner and in a sense created the doctrine of “sola scriptura” by proving to Luther that his views had been condemned by both Popes and Councils.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I actually think Frederick the Wise (Luther’s protector) gets a bad rap in this situation. The Protestant Reformation continually proved itself prone to iconoclasm. Frederick the Wise was the biggest collector (or was it second biggest?) of religious icons and statues in all of Europe. The money he stood to lose by continuing to back Luther had a good chance of eliminating one of the biggest sources of income and thus power. I, for one, think that Frederick actually believed in Luther’s reformation. I’m not saying that the increased power would have appealed to Frederick, but I think that the political maneuvering is somewhat overemphasized by modern historians.

I have not seen evidence that Frederick believed in Luther’s Reformation from a theological point of view, but I also think it wasn’t just a cynical play for power. I think it was an assertion of his dignity and sovereignty and the academic freedom of the university he had founded, but I also think that he had a sense of honor and obligation to Luther as a vassal, and he probably did think that Luther was genuinely trying to reform the Church and ought to be given a hearing.

From a purely cynical point of view, Frederick did have a good reason to support Luther’s initial attack on Tetzel, since Tetzel’s indulgence preaching threatened the “market share” of Frederick’s renowned collection!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Yes, but you will never get Catholics to admit there was corruption in the Church. With the “The Church said it, that’s the way it is” crowd, the Church can never be wrong or do wrong…oh, let me add, on matters of faith. So then you get into arguments on what are matters of faith. Those that do not fit, are never matters of faith. Geez, it’s a can of worms.

I have found that, if anything, Catholics are prone to exaggerate the corruption of the early sixteenth century and to portray Luther as someone who simply took the wrong approach in response to that corruption. This lets both sides off the hook too much, I think.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

I have found that, if anything, Catholics are prone to exaggerate the corruption of the early sixteenth century and to portray Luther as someone who simply took the wrong approach in response to that corruption. This lets both sides off the hook too much, I think.

Edwin

I believe that there was indeed corruption in the CC and always will be as long as there are humans being human.

But lets face the facts Edwin it was not just the corruption Luther was addressing. Then he tried to change the teaching.

The RCC has always taught that when it teaches us in the name of God it comes from God and it is a promise from God. Jesus promised us he is sending the Advocate to teach in his name.

So you can’t have it both ways. Either luther is correct and the CC taught us wrong. Or Jesus is right and the CC can’t teach us wrong when it teaches in his name.

And lets talk about Luther for a moment, look how he lived his life. He sure was busy comdemning everyone else and kinda forgot to take a look in the mirror wouldn’t you say? Do you feel he lived a clean Christian life?

And I personally do not believe that both sides got off the hook, not at all. I believe there was some misleading in indulgences, etc and because of Luther the Church was called on it and fixed the problem. I don’t disagree with Luther on that point. Where I disagree with him is on indulgences being wrong.

Anyone can walk into any Catholic Church today and disagree with how a Bishop or Priest may be handling a problem, and is probally right also.

But that no excuse to turn you back on Christ and his Church.

 

[Contarini]

I believe that there was indeed corruption in the CC and always will be as long as there are humans being human.

But lets face the facts Edwin it was not just the corruption Luther was addressing. Then he tried to change the teaching.

Isn’t that precisely what I was saying?

And lets talk about Luther for a moment, look how he lived his life. He sure was busy comdemning everyone else and kinda forgot to take a look in the mirror wouldn’t you say? Do you feel he lived a clean Christian life?

Pretty good all things considered, yes. I’m certainly not going to point fingers at him, though he did plenty of things that can be criticized. Attacking Luther’s character is not a very good approach for Catholics, I think. Best to keep the focus where he put it–on doctrine. Luther’s doctrinal innovations, particularly with regards to sola fide, don’t hold up.

And I personally do not believe that both sides got off the hook, not at all.

I was criticizing the view that it was all about abuses. You seem somehow to have gotten the impression that I’m saying the opposite of what I’m saying. This seems to happen often between us.

Edwin