Martin Luther's 82nd thesis

[guanophore]

Number 33 on the list caught my eye:

If I read this correct, Pope Leo X is saying that it is a heretical view that it is against the will of the Spirit that heretics should be burned.

So he’s saying it’s ok to burn heretics :shock:

And if you think it’s not ok, you’re a heretic

Huh

At the time, heretics were considered political subversives at the least, traitors. Such persons were banished, or if they refused to leave, were often put to death.

The death penalty can be scripturally supported, or has been.

It does not mean it is the will of the Spirit to burn them, either. It is basically supporting the death penalty.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

At the time, heretics were considered political subversives at the least, traitors. Such persons were banished, or if they refused to leave, were often put to death.

The death penalty can be scripturally supported, or has been.

It does not mean it is the will of the Spirit to burn them, either. It is basically supporting the death penalty.

I understand that things were so very different back then, including all sorts of weird ideas about justice, human nature and so on.

However, I really would have thought that the Pope, the successor of Peter, would be better tuned in to Jesus’ examples around forgiveness and so on.

Im certain there’s nothing in the NT that supports buring someone to death because they dont believe in your faith.

This is what continues to trouble me deeply.

Maybe I have just a too unrealistic picture of what one should be able to reasonably expect from the leader of the catholic church.

I would have epected the Pope to be screaming from the belfry not to hurt a hair on their head, as the Father has counted every one!!

 

[EphelDuath]

Heretics will have their just reward (whether it be punishment for knowingly preaching error, or not for being in error but with good intent) in the afterlife. “Burning” is often used as a metaphor for cleansing in purgatory. He is not saying that it is a heresy to suggest that heretics shouldn’t be executed.

 

[hesco]

I think what they’re getting at is,“Where is Purgatory in the Bible?” If I’m mistaken I apologize.

Where is trinity in the bible? Yet you use it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Luther wanted debate on justification.
You prove that Catholics today like yesterday want no part of that discussion.

The issue here was alive then, but is not now It was thought that the Pope had direct jurisdiction over the souls in purgatory - in fact, he does not: he cannot, & the CC cannot, affect them directly by use of the authority of the keys of Peter; all the Church can do is act “by way of suffrage”, per modum suffragii; that is, it can pray for them - but it cannot affect them directly. In this world, Papal & ecclesiastical authority can act directly.​

That is what all this about. No-one has been mis-informed, no-one is making things up - not Luther, not his contemporaries, not people today.

BTW - this issue does not directly relate to justification. Which is not to say it’s not relevant to justification.

 

[Hesychios]

I don’t buy this malarky one bit, in fact, Luther believed in the “solas” long before Tetzel came along (1512); the misuse of indulgences just happened to be a platform which he could use to ply his heresies.

You impute guite a bit of forethought into the life and work of Father Luther.

I for one do not know what exactly he delieved on those points before Tetzel came along. I do know that he was trained by the Confraternity of the Common Life as a youth and by the Augustinians as a young man. He was ordained a priest by a Catholic bishop and made a professor of theology at a Catholic university (which it was at the time).

In 1512AD he was awarded a Doctorate in Theology. Do you have evidence that he believed in the heresies you list while sitting for his doctorate? Apparently no one else at the time was aware of it.

You would have to be extremely naive not to see this (or extremely biased).

I will to admit a strong bias in favor of Holy Orthodoxy.

To you I am anything you want me to be.

Furthermore, your belief that the Church has to face it’s responsibility and own up to its mistakes is quite incredulous considering that all throughout Pope John Paul’s II reign (and well before that) we have been apologizing and reconciling ourselves in the name of Christian unity and love towards all those who were hurt by the Church. Do you think that humbling ourselves as we did before the world was easy Hesychios?

At the time, I was a Catholic, and I remember the reign of Pope John Paul II very well, all of it.

Where were you at the time? :ehh:

It is not about apologies, it is about a broken church that needs fixing. It needs to repair the damage it has done to itself for 1000 years or more. It needs to heal and denial of it’s problems will delay the process. The church needs to admit this to itself!

What more is it that you wish from us?

From you I expect nothing, and I ask nothing of you. The problems within the church which caused the Protestant Reformation are systemic.

Here we have a series of Popes, some with very undignified character, who have universal jurisdiction over the entire western church. There is no recourse to their judgment, no appeal may be heard. They have monopolized the administration of the church and all of the important appointments.

In the days prior to Father Luther this invited the sale of church offices and Cardinal’s hats. It also allowed for the holding of multiple Sees for personal financial gain! Both of these great sins were made possible because of Papal dispensations. In other words the Popes were licensing sin, and taking a share of the proceeds. In fact, that is one of the reasons Tetzel was working in Germany (and not, for instance, Spain). The local hierarchy was in hock to bankers to buy their offices and the revenue from this marketing scheme was to be split between the local archbishops and the Papacy by some ratio.

Today, the sin of buying church offices has been repudiated, but in fact the Popes power to sell an office in the future has not actually been removed from him. He has absolute control over the church with no possible oversight. I am not suggesting Pope Benedict or any successor would actually do this, but I am pointing out the achilles heel here…

The Pope actually has more real authority in the western church today than he did in 1516AD.

In the early church, bishops were selected locally by the dioceses or synods. Today, raise the idea that perhaps the local Episcopal Conferences should be choosing
the bishops and modern Catholics are terrified of the prospect. Reading here at CAF one can see many threads and posts decrying the “liberal” bishops, and even “heretical” bishops… but why?

The present core of bishops was entirely appointed by the recent Popes.

It is impossible for the Pope to personally know all of the bishops (let alone all of the candidates) and yet his is the last word in appointments! To advance in a centralized organization like that one has to get noticed by someone in the curia at Rome, so the chance to study in Rome is very important. He must be strong academically of course, and he needs the recommends.

An ambitious young man must “work the system” to get those coveted opportunities.

One wonders how such a bad bunch of bishops have cropped up over the years, but that is how, each and every one appointed by a Pope. Organization men… great administrators not generally noted for holiness. This is not how the church began.

The new system does not work. Where did this system come from?

The three Catholic Solas (tongue in cheek):

• Sola Petra: To believe that only Peter mattered, and that the other Apostles were of little real consequence.
• Sola Roma: To believe that only through the city of Rome is the charism of Peter the Apostle alive in the church.
• Sola Suprema: To believe that only in the most supremely authoritative manner is the charism of Peter manifest in the church, with no other possible interpretation.

Saint Peter was no Pope in the modern sense, and we all know this!

And while you “care” about the Church do you not see that you’re an enabler to disunity when rather than upholding the truth that we share in common and expressing that with our Protestant/Christian brothers you give them more reason to flee from it… ?

Defending Luther on this one issue is not promoting his doctrinal errors. I do firmly believe that Luther’s alleged heresies were merely gestating private opinions or non existent at the time. This is common among Catholics who let their own imaginations get to them. Every Catholic knows or should know that if they believe something contrary to the faith they are not supposed to teach it as truth.

 

[Hisalone]

Pope Leo X pointed out 41 errors in Luther’s theses.

papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

I am assuming that you agree with list.
Are you ready to defend it?

 

[guanophore]

I understand that things were so very different back then, including all sorts of weird ideas about justice, human nature and so on.

However, I really would have thought that the Pope, the successor of Peter, would be better tuned in to Jesus’ examples around forgiveness and so on.

Yes, we all hope and expect this about not only the Pope, but the ordained servants of the Church. that is why, when they are corrupt, it hurts more people.

Im certain there's nothing in the NT that supports buring someone to death because they dont believe in your faith.

Jesus says that those who do not believe are “condemned already” because they do not believe, indicating that death is actually the default setting, and faith is the only way to escape it.

Paul writes to the Church to “deliver this man to Satan” (excommunicate him) that his soul may be saved. This meant to put him out of the Church (where there is no salvation) into the world, where death is sure. This is one of the passages used to support the death penalty.

 This is what continues to trouble me deeply.

Maybe I have just a too unrealistic picture of what one should be able to reasonably expect from the leader of the catholic church.

I don’t think the expectation is unreasonable. I also think it is appropriate to be deeply troubled by corruption, especially among leaders.

I would have epected the Pope to be screaming from the belfry not to hurt a hair on their head, as the Father has counted every one!!

I think, if the Roman Pontiff had not become involved and invested in Politics and Secular matters, then these types of responses would have been very different. At that time, however, there was a complete conflation of Church and State, so that an enemy of the church was considered an enemy of the State as well. One of the major factors spawning the Reformation.

It is also one of the reasons today that no ordained priest is permitted to serve in office of secular government.

 

[josie_L]

This is true, but so is the rest of what my brother Michael is saying. There was so much corruption in the Roman clergy at the time that it would have been sparked by something else.

What he said about the Medici brothers and the abuse of the Papacy is all true. They gave gross scandal to the Church, and were the cause of many abandoning the faith, mayGod have mercy on their souls.

I don’t doubt the corruption was there (I’m all for clearing that up), but my point is this the issues brought up by Martin Luther were cleared up, furthermore, Martin Luther was no saint sent by God, he in fact held unorthodox views long before Tetzel (he even denied that ecumenical councils were infallible in a debate with Father Eck in 1518).

No, it is not incredulous at all. However, I would make a distinction between the Holy, Infallible and impeccable bride of Christ, and the corrupted persons attached to her. I think that responsibilility needs to be taken for wrongdoing engaged by ordained persons in the Church.

I do make that distinction, and I’m all for clearing up abuses within the Church but honestly what church/denomination doesn’t have issues/abuses that need to be cleared up? So enough with the “your Church needs to fix her problems” (which are not theological anyways) when others can’t even point out or fix the ones in theres. It takes two to tango.

And it proves his point that this is the Godly and appropriate action to take.

No it doesn’t prove his point because he believes our Church is still corrupted or needs to be fixed according to his extremely biased Orthodox views, that is, he does not believe in the papacy (in fact most of his posts are aimed at criticizing the papacy and the Church).

I think you are being over defensive here. All he is asking for is some acknowlegement that the abuses happened, and that the blame lies at the feet of the ordained Roman clergy - all the way up to the Pope.

If that was all he was saying then I wouldn’t be wasting my time writing to him.

Michael has done nothing “self righteous”, and this is an unwarranted accusation. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Methinks I am warranted for the reasons mentioned above and for the things I have observed in the past.

I do not agree with MIchael;s views about Luther either, and think he is deservedly villified here, but the truth is that he was a small stone in an avalanche that was about to go, and this avalanche was stacked by corrupt Roman clergy.

Correct, but do you agree with me that with the counter reformation we have resolved most of those issues/abuses?

Errors on both sides are equally problematic. The Latin communion is as much responsibile for the cause of the Reformation as those who rebelled against the abuses they committed.

You seem to think I’m trying to deflect away responsibility for the abuses committed by the Church which I’m not, but in light of the fact that the Church has rectified most of those abuses whereas the reformers ideas of sola this and sola that still persists I find it hard to believe then that we are criticized?

He had some just complaints that needed to be addressed.

Hesychios has many complaints all directed at the Catholic Church especially the papacy which he does not believe in.

p.s. And they don’t need to be addressed as they already were/are.

 

[EphelDuath]

I am assuming that you agree with list.
Are you ready to defend it?

I am a theology major, though the Exsurge Domine is not a document that I have studied in particular as of this point. I am ready to defend it, though just a forewarning, I may give less than satisfactory answers; to which you have to excuse me and allow other members of this site to offer augmentations to my posts.

 

[josie_L]

You impute guite a bit of forethought into the life and work of Father Luther.

I for one do not know what exactly he delieved on those points before Tetzel came along. I do know that he was trained by the Confraternity of the Common Life as a youth and by the Augustinians as a young man. He was ordained a priest by a Catholic bishop and made a professor of theology at a Catholic university (which it was at the time).

In 1512AD he was awarded a Doctorate in Theology. Do you have evidence that he believed in the heresies you list while sitting for his doctorate? Apparently no one else at the time was aware of it.

Luther’s “discovery”

“The thought came to him that Paul meant nothing less than that the righteousness of God could be made” our own simply by trusting in the righteousness of Christ. Luther thought he had been wasting his time and his efforts in trying to do for himself what Christ had already done for him. A feeling of immense relief swept over him. He felt that he was saved and that he could be saved in no other way than this.

When he began to teach theology, in 1512, he put forward his theory of justification by faith alone, of God’s forgiving love freely bestowed upon all who simply repent of their sins and trust in Christ. He convinced himself that that was the true faith of the Catholic Church, and he tried to combine his new-found doctrine with all other teaching of Catholic theology.

Gradually, however, Luther encountered opposition to his new theory of justification by faith alone. On October 31,1517 he published his 95 Theses, declaring that indulgences destroyed the true spirit of repentance. Called to account, he refused to recant his views unless refuted by biblical evidence itself, refusing to accept the authority and traditional teachings of the Church as reliable sources of doctrine."

catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9304fea1.asp

 

[josie_L]

The Pope actually has more real authority in the western church today than he did in 1516AD.

In the early church, bishops were selected locally by the dioceses or synods. Today, raise the idea that perhaps the local Episcopal Conferences should be choosing
the bishops and modern Catholics are terrified of the prospect. Reading here at CAF one can see many threads and posts decrying the “liberal” bishops, and even “heretical” bishops… but why?

The present core of bishops was entirely appointed by the recent Popes.

It is impossible for the Pope to personally know all of the bishops (let alone all of the candidates) and yet his is the last word in appointments! To advance in a centralized organization like that one has to get noticed by someone in the curia at Rome, so the chance to study in Rome is very important. He must be strong academically of course, and he needs the recommends.

An ambitious young man must “work the system” to get those coveted opportunities.

One wonders how such a bad bunch of bishops have cropped up over the years, but that is how, each and every one appointed by a Pope. Organization men… great administrators not generally noted for holiness. This is not how the church began.

The new system does not work. Where did this system come from?

"Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defence, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this."

Council of Sardica,Canon IV (A.D. 343/344),in NPNF2,XIV:418

"Bishop Hosius said: Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent. And be this also ordained. But if he think that the bishops are sufficient for the examination and decision of the matter let him do what shall seem good in his most prudent judgment. The bishops answered: What has been said is approved."

Council of Sardica,Canon V (A.D. 343/344),in NPNF2,XIV:419

"What we have always believed, that we now know, for experience is proving and confirming for each of us what he has heard with his ears. It is true what the Apostle Paul, the most blessed teacher of the Gentiles, said of himself: ‘Do ye seek a proof of him who speaks in me?’ For, since the Lord Christ dwelt in him, there can be no doubt that the Spirit spoke by through his soul and animated the instrument of his body. And thus you, dearly beloved brother, though distant in body, have been with us in unison of mind and will. The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle."

Council of Sardica,To Pope Julius (A.D. 342),as cited by James T. Shotwell and Louise Ropes Loomis The See of Peter (New York: Columbia,1927),pp.527-528.

cin.org/users/jgallegos/primacy.htm

 

[josie_L]

It is not about apologies, it is about a broken church that needs fixing. It needs to repair the damage it has done to itself for 1000 years or more. It needs to heal and denial of it’s problems will delay the process. The church needs to admit this to itself! From you I expect nothing, and I ask nothing of you. The problems within the church which caused the Protestant Reformation are systemic.

The Catholic Church is not a “broken” church that needs fixing (that would be more apropos with regard to the Anglican church), it does however need to be purified of sin which Hesychios every denomination/church needs to do. Furthermore, the Church of which you speak of is and always will be the Bride of Christ, irregardless of what you or anyone else says or thinks. The truth of that is in sacred scripture, sacred tradition and history.

 

[josie_L]

*]Sola Petra: To believe that only Peter mattered, and that the other Apostles were of little real consequence.

*]Sola Roma: To believe that only through the city of Rome is the charism of Peter the Apostle alive in the church.

*]Sola Suprema: To believe that only in the most supremely authoritative manner is the charism of Peter manifest in the church, with no other possible interpretation.

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:1415-416

"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, woven from the top throughout,’ since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover the sealed fountain’ and the garden inclosed,’ I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. The wide space of sea and land that lies between us cannot deter me from searching for the pearl of great price.’ Wheresoever the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together.’ Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact. The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold; but here the seed corn is choked in the furrows and nothing grows but darnel or oats. In the West the Sun of righteousness is even now rising; in the East, Lucifer, who fell from heaven, has once more set his throne above the stars. Ye are the light of the world,’ ye are the salt of the earth,’ ye are “vessels of gold and of silver.” Here are vessels of wood or of earth, which wait for the rod of iron,and eternal fire. Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. **My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist." **

Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15:1-2(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VI:18

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.”

Cyprian,To Cornelius,Epistle 54/59:14(A.D. 252),in ANF,V:344

“You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter,sat … in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one.”

Optatus of Mileve,The Schism of Donatists,2:2-3 (c.A.D. 367),in GCC,55

“Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all(churches) the bonds of sacred communion.”

Ambrose,To Emperor Gratian,Epistle 11:4(A.D. 381),in SPP,160

“But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?”

Ambrose,The death of his brother Satyrus,1:47(A.D. 378),in NPNF2,X:168

“I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by…and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate.”

Augustine,Against the Letter of Mani,5(A.D. 395),in GCC,78

 

[Hesychios]

The Catholic Church -]is not a “broken” church that needs fixing/-] (that would be more apropos with regard to the Anglican church), it does however need to be purified of sin which Hesychios every denomination/church needs to do. Furthermore, the Church of which you speak of is and always will be the Bride of Christ, irregardless of what you or anyone else says or thinks. The truth of that is in sacred scripture, sacred tradition and history.

No doubt all churches require occasional reform, but this is something quite different. What I assert is that the western church has a systemic problem, which means that crises of different sorts will occasionally manifest themselves as symptoms of the underlying problem. In other words, a periodic reform of the type we have seen merely provides symptomatic relief, it does not address the underlying cause and source of these conditions.

What the canons you cite specify for Rome is what any Metropolitan Patriarch can do in his own province (and these were mostly Latin bishops at Sardica, it so happens). The canons of Sardica are actually ok in their prescriptions, for in the city of Rome in those days the bishops were very Orthodox and the fathers of that council saw him as their patriarch. If today, the Papacy was limited to the authority claimed for it there, the church would be far healthier.

I think we can assume that the Latin bishops would have liked to extend this privilige beyond the territory alloted to them, but the Council was never read or accepted in the eastern church as bearing such authority as to overturn previously made Conciliar rulings.

In fact, the canons of the regional council you have cited do not even support the concept of bishops of Rome selecting the candidates for the episcopate, transfering them from city to city nor promoting them to Metropolitans. History shows that across the western church outside of their own Metropolia (central Italy) the bishops of Rome did not choose the candidates for bishop for many centuries.

Sardica does not support the claim of universal Papal jurisdiction, which has wreaked so much havoc on the church. Sardica is not an Ecumenical Council by anyone’s definition, and to interpret it as giving authority to the bishop of Rome across the entire church is to ignore what has already been stated by Ecumenical Councils on the subject.

Canons of Nicea, the First Ecumenical Council:
4. It is most fitting that a Bishop should be installed by all those in his province. But if such a thing is difficult either because of the urgency of circumstances, or because of the distance to be travelled, at least three should meet together somewhere and by their votes combined with those of the ones absent and joining in the election by letter they should carry out the ordination thereafter. But as for the ratification of the proceedings, let it be entrusted in each province to the Metropolitan.

1. Let the ancient customs prevail which were in vogue in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, to allow the bishop of Alexandria to have authority over all these parts, since this is also the treatment usually accorded to the bishop of Rome. Likewise with reference to Antioch, and in other provinces, let the seniority be preserved to the Churches. In general it is obvious that in the case in which anyone has been made a bishop without the Metropolitan’s approval, the great Council has prescribed that such a person must not be a Bishop. If, however, to the common vote of all, though reasonable and in accordance with an ecclesiastical Canon, two or three men object on account of a private quarrel, let the vote of the majority prevail.
   This last [bolded] part indicates the right of confirmation of an election to the episcopate is proper to the Metropolitan. This rule precedes Sardica, and has the weight of the authority of an Ecumenical Council. The line directly following it gives us a peek into the process of selection, the choice of bishop being made locally by the synod!

What the church of the west has done is… sadly… take the dignity and prestige of the church in the city of Rome, a holy Christian community glorified (more or less) by two great Apostles and endeavored to monopolize the governing of the holy church and appoint all of the bishops, and in so doing has created a powerful centralized institution which will not accept correction or admonition, and has proven to be subject to serious abuses which cannot be remedied until it is willing to take the medicine itself. Sadly this has too often been when a crises occurs which threatens it’s own very existence.

As a consequence the Body of Christ has suffered, most especially in the west, but occasionally this problem has come to the east in a most intrusive way and we have to read from people like you who attempt to prove it was always supposed to be that way.

 

[Hesychios]

The Catholic Church -]is not a “broken” church that needs fixing/-] (that would be more apropos with regard to the Anglican church), it does however need to be purified of sin which Hesychios every denomination/church needs to do. Furthermore, the Church of which you speak of is and always will be the Bride of Christ, irregardless of what you or anyone else says or thinks. The truth of that is in sacred scripture, sacred tradition and history.

No doubt all churches require occasional reform, but this is something quite different. What I assert is that the western church has a systemic problem, which means that crises of different sorts will occasionally manifest themselves as symptoms of the underlying problem. In other words, a periodic reform of the type we have seen merely provides symptomatic relief, it does not address the underlying cause and source of these conditions.

What the canons you cite specify for Rome is what any Metropolitan Patriarch can do in his own province (and these were mostly Latin bishops at Sardica, it so happens). The canons of Sardica are actually ok in their prescriptions, for in the city of Rome in those days the bishops were very Orthodox and the fathers of that council saw him as their patriarch. If today, the Papacy was limited to the authority claimed for it there, the church would be far healthier.

I think we can assume that the Latin bishops would have liked to extend this privilige beyond the territory alloted to them, but the Council was never read or accepted in the eastern church as bearing such authority as to overturn previously made Conciliar rulings.

In fact, the canons of the regional council you have cited do not even support the concept of bishops of Rome selecting the candidates for the episcopate, transfering them from city to city nor promoting them to Metropolitans. History shows that across the western church outside of their own Metropolia (central Italy) the bishops of Rome did not choose the candidates for bishop for many centuries.

Sardica does not support the claim of universal Papal jurisdiction, which has wreaked so much havoc on the church. Sardica is not an Ecumenical Council by anyone’s definition, and to interpret it as giving authority to the bishop of Rome across the entire church is to ignore what has already been stated by Ecumenical Councils on the subject.

Canons of Nicea, the First Ecumenical Council:
4. It is most fitting that a Bishop should be installed by all those in his province. But if such a thing is difficult either because of the urgency of circumstances, or because of the distance to be travelled, at least three should meet together somewhere and by their votes combined with those of the ones absent and joining in the election by letter they should carry out the ordination thereafter. But as for the ratification of the proceedings, let it be entrusted in each province to the Metropolitan.

1. Let the ancient customs prevail which were in vogue in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, to allow the bishop of Alexandria to have authority over all these parts, since this is also the treatment usually accorded to the bishop of Rome. Likewise with reference to Antioch, and in other provinces, let the seniority be preserved to the Churches. In general it is obvious that in the case in which anyone has been made a bishop without the Metropolitan’s approval, the great Council has prescribed that such a person must not be a Bishop. If, however, to the common vote of all, though reasonable and in accordance with an ecclesiastical Canon, two or three men object on account of a private quarrel, let the vote of the majority prevail.
   This last [bolded] part indicates the right of confirmation of an election to the episcopate is proper to the Metropolitan. This rule precedes Sardica, and has the weight of the authority of an Ecumenical Council. The line directly following it gives us a peek into the process of selection, the choice of bishop being made locally by the synod!

What the church of the west has done is… sadly… take the dignity and prestige of the church in the city of Rome, a holy Christian community glorified (more or less) by two great Apostles and endeavored to monopolize the governing of the holy church and appoint all of the bishops, and in so doing has created a powerful centralized institution which will not accept correction or admonition, and has proven to be subject to serious abuses which cannot be remedied until it is willing to take the medicine itself. Sadly this has too often been when a crises occurs which threatens it’s own very existence.

As a consequence the Body of Christ has suffered, most especially in the west, but occasionally this problem has come to the east in a most intrusive way and we have to read from people like you who attempt to prove it was always supposed to be that way.

Hesychios has many complaints all directed at the Catholic Church especially the papacy which he does not believe in.

I believe in the Papacy.

The Papacy I believe in no longer exists in Rome.

The closest thing to it today is the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Pope Benedict could study how this office is exercised by consulting his friend Patriarch Bartholomew.

 

[guanophore]

• this issue does not directly relate to justification. Which is not to say it’s not relevant to justification.

I agree, but it does relate to the thread topic:

1. To wit: – “Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial.”

Clearly Luther did not know or understand that this was beyond the Pope’s abiliities.

 

[guanophore]

It is not about apologies, it is about a broken church that needs fixing. It needs to repair the damage it has done to itself for 1000 years or more. It needs to heal and denial of it’s problems will delay the process. The church needs to admit this to itself! From you I expect nothing, and I ask nothing of you. The problems within the church which caused the Protestant Reformation are systemic.

This seems like a very interesting topic for a new thread.

 Here we have a series of Popes, some with very undignified character, who have universal jurisdiction over the entire western church. There is no recourse to their judgment, no appeal may be heard. They have monopolized the administration of the church and all of the important appointments.

Relevant of course to the “damage” you cite, but also off topic in this thread.

 In the days prior to Father Luther this invited the sale of church offices and Cardinal's hats. It also allowed for the holding of multiple Sees for personal financial gain! Both of these great sins were made possible because of Papal dispensations. In other words the Popes were licensing sin, and taking a share of the proceeds. In fact, that is one of the reasons Tetzel was working in Germany (and not, for instance, Spain). The local hierarchy was in hock to bankers to buy their offices and the revenue from this marketing scheme was to be split between the local archbishops and the Papacy by some ratio.

What do you think about using this entire post to start a new topic?

Defending Luther on this one issue is not promoting his doctrinal errors. I do firmly believe that Luther’s alleged heresies were merely gestating private opinions or non existent at the time. This is common among Catholics who let their own imaginations get to them. Every Catholic knows or should know that if they believe something contrary to the faith they are not supposed to teach it as truth.

Do you think that Luther really believed that the Pope had the powers he attributed to him in the 82nd thesis?

 

[guanophore]

I am assuming that you agree with list.
Are you ready to defend it?

If so, please take it to another thread. This one is supposed to focus on the 82nd.

 

[dsears]

Well, we know one thing. Luther’s work has turned the western church into a mess. (I’m not saying that the other reformers would not have came along, but they might have taken a different approach, who knows?) But now we have churches all over the place and most have no idea what each other believes. In fact in most protestant circles anymore I’m not even sure if they know what they believe.